With the huge drop in the after-hours trading, it leads me to believe our economy may actually be recovering... we're back to the old pump and dump routine that was common pre-recession/depression. Ah, just like the old days...
You're wrong. The bigger a company is, the more ability it has to do what it needs to do.
Do you naively think that if MS hadn't gotten big enough, and hadn't made so much in monopoly profits it would be where it is today? I hope not!
Jesus, OBVIOUSLY that's true. What I'm saying is that it matters ZERO whether Apple is bigger or smaller than MS. It does matter that it's BIG, but whether its REVENUE is higher or lower than MS, no, it doesn't matter. Seriously, open your eyes and READ. Stop changing the debate to something obvious and then claiming that I'm denying it. I'm not saying revenue doesn't matter, I'm saying as a financial matter, the comparison between MS and Apple is for idiots.
You got it. Commentators? Analysts? Why would they matter? All they do is try to generate content that makes dummy fanboys pay them with ad clicks or for stock tips.
Yeah, the WSJ is full of fanboys. Do you think Microsoft doesn't see Apple as a competitor? I think Microsoft does. Every time Apple releases a product Ballmer chimes in. Here's one:
You got it. Commentators? Analysts? Why would they matter? All they do is try to generate content that makes dummy fanboys pay them with ad clicks or for stock tips.
They matter. If they didn't, companies and major investors wouldn't be paying thousands for their reports. They also wouldn't be listening.
Don't get me wrong. I keep my own counsel. But what they do is much more than what they release to the public.
Yeah, the WSJ is full of fanboys. Do you think Microsoft doesn't see Apple as a competitor? I think Microsoft does. Every time Apple releases a product Ballmer chimes in. Here's one:
Does Ballmer do that when Wal-Mart makes the news? Or does Apple make an OS that competes with Windows?
Of course they see them as a competitor. But they don't care if Apple has more or less revenue than them. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft sells things that they can make 100,000,000 of for the same cost as it costs them to make 10. Don't worry about it.
Jesus, OBVIOUSLY that's true. What I'm saying is that it matters ZERO whether Apple is bigger or smaller than MS. It does matter that it's BIG, but whether its REVENUE is higher or lower than MS, no, it doesn't matter. Seriously, open your eyes and READ. Stop changing the debate to something obvious and then claiming that I'm denying it. I'm not saying revenue doesn't matter, I'm saying as a financial matter, the comparison between MS and Apple is for idiots.
It's nice that you take a part of what I say, agree, and forget about all the rest. This was just part of the point. The point is I say you're wrong, as i said before; you don't think that Apple and MS are direct competitors. You've said they aren't. That's simply incorrect.
Of course they see them as a competitor. But they don't care if Apple has more or less revenue than them. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft sells things that they can make 100,000,000 of for the same cost as it costs them to make 10. Don't worry about it.
So they compete but Microsoft doesn't care if Apple has more revenue or not? Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't to me. And since you admit they compete, your earlier comparison to Wal-Mart is bunk too, isn't it.
Of course they see them as a competitor. But they don't care if Apple has more or less revenue than them. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft sells things that they can make 100,000,000 of for the same cost as it costs them to make 10. Don't worry about it.
And when Apple prevents them from selling that 100 million? What then? You forget when Ballmer said that the iPhone didn't matter because they would rather license 70% of the phone OS market than sell a few million phones?
Apple took any possibility of that away from them. He acknowledged the other day that Apple, Google and others were "great competitors". Competitors to whom? You say, surely not MS? I say, surely yes, MS.
What about their music software and DRM, "Plays for Sure"? Apple killed that. That wasn't competition? It sure was. That's why MS went into even more dirct competition with the failed Zune.
If you don't think that MS sees Apple as one of their greatest competitors, think again.
So while I'm happy that you now do say that they do compete, it's really a major competition.
And the bigger Apple gets, and the more profitable, the less influence MS will have, because all of these sales will be directly impacting MS's business, which is licensing software.
MS hasn't been happy about netbooks, because they were only getting $15 per XP Starter license per unit. Now they get almost $30 for Win 7. But that's still less than the $40 to $75 they get for other versions. MS would just like the see netbooks go away.
But when Apple sells tablets, and netbook sales suffer as a result, that makes MS cringe, because people aren't buying notebooks instead of netbooks, they're buying an Apple iOS product instead. You think that's not competition?
I don't think your statements make sense. The other hardware makers aren't Apple's real competition, it's MS. And Apple is MS's competition, because they take sales away from them.
Both Hp and Dell have expresses interest over the years in producing computers with OS X. Some day, that could still happen. But I can't see MS selling it.
There are a couple of troublesome items of news for the market: substantially lower operating margins (37% v. 41%), lower-than-forecasted iPod (9M v. 10M) and iPad (4+M v. 5M) sales, and 57% of revenues from abroad (a sizable portion of that is driven by the dramatic depreciation of the dollar in the past quarter). It's very tough to continue to execute at this level, let alone better -- it's like an elastic band that is stretched very thin.
The post-announcement drop is therefore not surprising. But it's probably overdone (and by 9.30 AM EST tomorrow, it'll probably have recouped some of it).*
*If we forecast a forward P/E of 16 (higher than the long run average for US stocks) and an EPS of $19 for 2010-11, the price would be 19*16 = $304, which is just a little higher than where it is now after-hours.
There are a couple of troublesome items of news for the market: substantially lower operating margins (37% v. 41%), lower-than-forecasted iPod (9M v. 10M) and iPad (4+M v. 5M) sales, and 57% of revenues from abroad (a sizable portion of that is driven by the dramatic depreciation of the dollar in the past quarter). It's very tough to continue to execute at this level, let alone better -- it's like an elastic band that is stretched very thin.
The post-announcement drop is therefore not surprising. But it's probably overdone (and by 9.30 AM EST tomorrow, it'll probably have recouped some of it).*
*If we forecast a forward P/E of 16 (higher than the long run average for US stocks) and an EPS of $19 for 2010-11, the price would be 19*16 = $304, which is just a little higher than where it is now after-hours.
While I was surprised at the iPad numbers; I thought they would be above 4.5 million, the rest was pretty good. I wasn't disappointed at the iPod numbers, because everyone knew that Apple was coming out with new ones in September. And what happens when Apple does that? The numbers drop. So, no biggie to me. Many investors seem to be deers in the headlights though.
As far as the margins went, well they were still notably higher than Apple's guidance. Apple said that iPads have lower margins. they said that 6 months ago, and reiterated it at the last conference, so people should have understood that now, but of course, they didn't.
At the conference, Jobs, in a rare appearance, said that they wanted to "own" the tablet market, and so they priced aggressively. Hey! Isn't this what people here are always grumbling about? Isn't it what investors grumble about? Lower price, get marketshare.
I believe that Jobs thinks that the "desktop wars" aren't over after all, and that the tablet, and perhaps the new Macbook Air, if what we're hearing is correct, will help Apple to come close, maybe pull even, and possibly, down the road, win. 36.5% is still a pretty good number. I remember when analysts wanted it to go from 28 to 32%!
And 14.1 million iPhones was over the top. Like, for real!
3.9 million Macs was a new record as well.
Geeze, $20.4 billion in sales and over $4 billion in profit wasn't enough for them? Give me a break!
Do people understand what this means for next year? I don't think so.
Both Hp and Dell have expresses interest over the years in producing computers with OS X. Some day, that could still happen. But I can't see MS selling it.
And I can't see Apple relinquishing control over their OS to those junkvendors. Their one and only goal is to build it cheap. Nothing else really matters.
OS X runs blazingly fast on an HP, but as long as their future is tied to MS, their growth potential is limited to convincing the market their printer ink is worth its excessive price:
Quote:
H.P.'s printing group has long been one of the company's star performers. It accounts for nearly a quarter of overall revenue. Printer ink remains one of the most expensive liquids on the planet - more valuable than expensive perfumes - providing H.P. with far higher profit margins than PCs and other types of computing hardware provide.
And I can't see Apple relinquishing control over their OS to those junkvendors. Their one and only goal is to build it cheap. Nothing else really matters.
OS X runs blazingly fast on an HP, but as long as their future is tied to MS, their growth potential is limited to convincing the market their printer ink is worth its excessive price:
It's not that simple anymore. When Apple was Still Apple Computer, and had little other in major businesses, they tried it once, when sales were dropping. The main problem is that it wasn't done well. but Apple was at a disadvantage. The idea of clones was to increase sales and marketshare when it was shrinking, and fewer people wanted Macs.
The story is considerably different now. It's no longer Apple computer, it's just Apple. They have several major product categories that outshine their computer business, which is still growing very well.
But the point is that as these other businesses grow faster than the computer business, Apple may look around and decide that it's much more profitable to license the OS. If the computer business gets down to 20% of the total sales, they may believe that licensing out the OS under strict conditions would be worth losing 25% of their computer hardware sales.
Now that their OS is worth a lot to other companies, Apple would be able to set the rules. how many people, and businesses would be willing to buy a legally obtainable "hackintosh from Dell or Hp? I'll bet it would be a lot.
Don't forget that with all the areas in which MS is losing money big time, they still have a 78% gross margin. Adobe has over 90%. That's from licensing software. At one time, doing that would have made Apple a much smaller company, but not in a couple of years.
I'm not saying they would do it, of course, but I'll bet they have a plan for that, should there be an opportunity.
Yeah, I guess. But this result is actually more the exception than the rule. Last week GOOG beat the street by 15% and rose 10%. Good luck making sense of the markets on any given day.
It's always amazing how the stock drops after an earnings report. Yeah, so the iPad numbers were a little low - heck they're supposed to be. The iPad isn't established enough to be a back-to-school purchase yet. However, it's positioned to be a holiday hit, especially with it now being sold at Walmart, Target, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sam's Club, RadioShack (not sure on that one), etc. Plus, with iOS 4.2 on it, they'll be able to advertise it as having the same features as the current iPhone and iPod Touch, along with the new printing features, AirPlay, and more.
The after-hours selloff may also have been influenced by underwhelming sales of Apple's new tablet computer - the iPad, which came it at just 4.2 million.
That represents a rise of just 28% on the previous quarter, which was when the company first launched the new product."
Comments
With the huge drop in the after-hours trading, it leads me to believe our economy may actually be recovering... we're back to the old pump and dump routine that was common pre-recession/depression. Ah, just like the old days...
Great insight, Spam.
You're wrong. The bigger a company is, the more ability it has to do what it needs to do.
Do you naively think that if MS hadn't gotten big enough, and hadn't made so much in monopoly profits it would be where it is today? I hope not!
Jesus, OBVIOUSLY that's true. What I'm saying is that it matters ZERO whether Apple is bigger or smaller than MS. It does matter that it's BIG, but whether its REVENUE is higher or lower than MS, no, it doesn't matter. Seriously, open your eyes and READ. Stop changing the debate to something obvious and then claiming that I'm denying it. I'm not saying revenue doesn't matter, I'm saying as a financial matter, the comparison between MS and Apple is for idiots.
You got it. Commentators? Analysts? Why would they matter? All they do is try to generate content that makes dummy fanboys pay them with ad clicks or for stock tips.
Yeah, the WSJ is full of fanboys. Do you think Microsoft doesn't see Apple as a competitor? I think Microsoft does. Every time Apple releases a product Ballmer chimes in. Here's one:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...he-transcript/
Does Ballmer do that when Wal-Mart makes the news? Or does Apple make an OS that competes with Windows?
Hindsight. It's only money, it wouldn't make you happy.
Heh! People who don't have it always say that.
Come to think of it, people who DO have it, and don't want to give any of it away also say it.
Which are you?
You got it. Commentators? Analysts? Why would they matter? All they do is try to generate content that makes dummy fanboys pay them with ad clicks or for stock tips.
They matter. If they didn't, companies and major investors wouldn't be paying thousands for their reports. They also wouldn't be listening.
Don't get me wrong. I keep my own counsel. But what they do is much more than what they release to the public.
Yeah, the WSJ is full of fanboys. Do you think Microsoft doesn't see Apple as a competitor? I think Microsoft does. Every time Apple releases a product Ballmer chimes in. Here's one:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...he-transcript/
Does Ballmer do that when Wal-Mart makes the news? Or does Apple make an OS that competes with Windows?
Of course they see them as a competitor. But they don't care if Apple has more or less revenue than them. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft sells things that they can make 100,000,000 of for the same cost as it costs them to make 10. Don't worry about it.
Jesus, OBVIOUSLY that's true. What I'm saying is that it matters ZERO whether Apple is bigger or smaller than MS. It does matter that it's BIG, but whether its REVENUE is higher or lower than MS, no, it doesn't matter. Seriously, open your eyes and READ. Stop changing the debate to something obvious and then claiming that I'm denying it. I'm not saying revenue doesn't matter, I'm saying as a financial matter, the comparison between MS and Apple is for idiots.
It's nice that you take a part of what I say, agree, and forget about all the rest. This was just part of the point. The point is I say you're wrong, as i said before; you don't think that Apple and MS are direct competitors. You've said they aren't. That's simply incorrect.
Of course they see them as a competitor. But they don't care if Apple has more or less revenue than them. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft sells things that they can make 100,000,000 of for the same cost as it costs them to make 10. Don't worry about it.
So they compete but Microsoft doesn't care if Apple has more revenue or not? Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't to me. And since you admit they compete, your earlier comparison to Wal-Mart is bunk too, isn't it.
Of course they see them as a competitor. But they don't care if Apple has more or less revenue than them. Apple sells hardware, Microsoft sells things that they can make 100,000,000 of for the same cost as it costs them to make 10. Don't worry about it.
And when Apple prevents them from selling that 100 million? What then? You forget when Ballmer said that the iPhone didn't matter because they would rather license 70% of the phone OS market than sell a few million phones?
Apple took any possibility of that away from them. He acknowledged the other day that Apple, Google and others were "great competitors". Competitors to whom? You say, surely not MS? I say, surely yes, MS.
What about their music software and DRM, "Plays for Sure"? Apple killed that. That wasn't competition? It sure was. That's why MS went into even more dirct competition with the failed Zune.
If you don't think that MS sees Apple as one of their greatest competitors, think again.
So while I'm happy that you now do say that they do compete, it's really a major competition.
And the bigger Apple gets, and the more profitable, the less influence MS will have, because all of these sales will be directly impacting MS's business, which is licensing software.
MS hasn't been happy about netbooks, because they were only getting $15 per XP Starter license per unit. Now they get almost $30 for Win 7. But that's still less than the $40 to $75 they get for other versions. MS would just like the see netbooks go away.
But when Apple sells tablets, and netbook sales suffer as a result, that makes MS cringe, because people aren't buying notebooks instead of netbooks, they're buying an Apple iOS product instead. You think that's not competition?
I don't think your statements make sense. The other hardware makers aren't Apple's real competition, it's MS. And Apple is MS's competition, because they take sales away from them.
Both Hp and Dell have expresses interest over the years in producing computers with OS X. Some day, that could still happen. But I can't see MS selling it.
There are a couple of troublesome items of news for the market: substantially lower operating margins (37% v. 41%), lower-than-forecasted iPod (9M v. 10M) and iPad (4+M v. 5M) sales, and 57% of revenues from abroad (a sizable portion of that is driven by the dramatic depreciation of the dollar in the past quarter). It's very tough to continue to execute at this level, let alone better -- it's like an elastic band that is stretched very thin.
The post-announcement drop is therefore not surprising. But it's probably overdone (and by 9.30 AM EST tomorrow, it'll probably have recouped some of it).*
*If we forecast a forward P/E of 16 (higher than the long run average for US stocks) and an EPS of $19 for 2010-11, the price would be 19*16 = $304, which is just a little higher than where it is now after-hours.
It often fails. I've held this stock for 13 years, so I know.
Nice to know we're back in familiar territory again:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=50
It's not just about the EPS or revenue numbers.
There are a couple of troublesome items of news for the market: substantially lower operating margins (37% v. 41%), lower-than-forecasted iPod (9M v. 10M) and iPad (4+M v. 5M) sales, and 57% of revenues from abroad (a sizable portion of that is driven by the dramatic depreciation of the dollar in the past quarter). It's very tough to continue to execute at this level, let alone better -- it's like an elastic band that is stretched very thin.
The post-announcement drop is therefore not surprising. But it's probably overdone (and by 9.30 AM EST tomorrow, it'll probably have recouped some of it).*
*If we forecast a forward P/E of 16 (higher than the long run average for US stocks) and an EPS of $19 for 2010-11, the price would be 19*16 = $304, which is just a little higher than where it is now after-hours.
While I was surprised at the iPad numbers; I thought they would be above 4.5 million, the rest was pretty good. I wasn't disappointed at the iPod numbers, because everyone knew that Apple was coming out with new ones in September. And what happens when Apple does that? The numbers drop. So, no biggie to me. Many investors seem to be deers in the headlights though.
As far as the margins went, well they were still notably higher than Apple's guidance. Apple said that iPads have lower margins. they said that 6 months ago, and reiterated it at the last conference, so people should have understood that now, but of course, they didn't.
At the conference, Jobs, in a rare appearance, said that they wanted to "own" the tablet market, and so they priced aggressively. Hey! Isn't this what people here are always grumbling about? Isn't it what investors grumble about? Lower price, get marketshare.
I believe that Jobs thinks that the "desktop wars" aren't over after all, and that the tablet, and perhaps the new Macbook Air, if what we're hearing is correct, will help Apple to come close, maybe pull even, and possibly, down the road, win. 36.5% is still a pretty good number. I remember when analysts wanted it to go from 28 to 32%!
And 14.1 million iPhones was over the top. Like, for real!
3.9 million Macs was a new record as well.
Geeze, $20.4 billion in sales and over $4 billion in profit wasn't enough for them? Give me a break!
Do people understand what this means for next year? I don't think so.
Both Hp and Dell have expresses interest over the years in producing computers with OS X. Some day, that could still happen. But I can't see MS selling it.
And I can't see Apple relinquishing control over their OS to those junkvendors. Their one and only goal is to build it cheap. Nothing else really matters.
OS X runs blazingly fast on an HP, but as long as their future is tied to MS, their growth potential is limited to convincing the market their printer ink is worth its excessive price:
H.P.'s printing group has long been one of the company's star performers. It accounts for nearly a quarter of overall revenue. Printer ink remains one of the most expensive liquids on the planet - more valuable than expensive perfumes - providing H.P. with far higher profit margins than PCs and other types of computing hardware provide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/te...19hewlett.html
And I can't see Apple relinquishing control over their OS to those junkvendors. Their one and only goal is to build it cheap. Nothing else really matters.
OS X runs blazingly fast on an HP, but as long as their future is tied to MS, their growth potential is limited to convincing the market their printer ink is worth its excessive price:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/te...19hewlett.html
It's not that simple anymore. When Apple was Still Apple Computer, and had little other in major businesses, they tried it once, when sales were dropping. The main problem is that it wasn't done well. but Apple was at a disadvantage. The idea of clones was to increase sales and marketshare when it was shrinking, and fewer people wanted Macs.
The story is considerably different now. It's no longer Apple computer, it's just Apple. They have several major product categories that outshine their computer business, which is still growing very well.
But the point is that as these other businesses grow faster than the computer business, Apple may look around and decide that it's much more profitable to license the OS. If the computer business gets down to 20% of the total sales, they may believe that licensing out the OS under strict conditions would be worth losing 25% of their computer hardware sales.
Now that their OS is worth a lot to other companies, Apple would be able to set the rules. how many people, and businesses would be willing to buy a legally obtainable "hackintosh from Dell or Hp? I'll bet it would be a lot.
Don't forget that with all the areas in which MS is losing money big time, they still have a 78% gross margin. Adobe has over 90%. That's from licensing software. At one time, doing that would have made Apple a much smaller company, but not in a couple of years.
I'm not saying they would do it, of course, but I'll bet they have a plan for that, should there be an opportunity.
Nice to know we're back in familiar territory again:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=50
Yeah, I guess. But this result is actually more the exception than the rule. Last week GOOG beat the street by 15% and rose 10%. Good luck making sense of the markets on any given day.
Hindsight. It's only money, it wouldn't make you happy.
Or... maybe it would. He'll never know.
Heh! People who don't have it always say that.
Come to think of it, people who DO have it, and don't want to give any of it away also say it.
Which are you?
A Donald Trump, who is what I would call one of the "faux rich", flaunts it. The very wealthy have no need to flaunt it.
A Donald Trump, who is what I would call one of the "faux rich", flaunts it. The very wealthy have no need to flaunt it.
Everyone knows the very wealthy are very wealthy. They don't have to flaunt it. but they do in their own way.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11570631
Specifically :
"iPads flat
The after-hours selloff may also have been influenced by underwhelming sales of Apple's new tablet computer - the iPad, which came it at just 4.2 million.
That represents a rise of just 28% on the previous quarter, which was when the company first launched the new product."
Idiots!