Apple's 2012 profits forecast to be highest of any public company ever - Page 2

 

Some possibilities for an Apple encore:

 

1) An iPhone with camera quality approaching DLSR

 

2) Entry PayGo iPhone -- especially for India, Africa...

 

3) MVNO supplying consistent voice, data, text worldwide

 

4) OTPC (One Tablet Per Child) iPad

 

5) Expand iTunes online store for buying events, hard goods, reservations...

 

6) Pay for any/all of the above through iTunes 400 million (and growing) credit card accounts.

The reason I ask is because I thought that such integration was obvious. Apple appears to be able to convince companies to partner with them in ways that are often manifest only in retrospect. In this instance; however, the integration seemed apparent due to companies desiring to benefit from the "reality distortion field." Considering the massive capital and effort Apple has expended on Siri and iCloud expansion of the Apple ecosystem to non-traditional (for Apple) markets.

I wish I'd poured all my retirement money into Apple back in the early 90s when I got my first real job and started dabbling in investing. As it is, I only bought a few dozen shares and have sold most of them over the years for things like a downpayment on a house. But I'm still bullish on Apple and acquire a share now and then when I can. Fortunately, many of my 401k funds have Apple as a large holding.

 

The only similar returns I've had was back in the tech bubble of the late-90s. I bought some Corning for around $15/share and it went up to $100/share. But I didn't sell at the top and it crashed down when the bubble popped - lesson learned about sell orders.

 

I can't understand why a company like Sony isn't Apple. Sony had a reputation for quality products. Has lots of engineering resources. Makes many of the components required for iPods, tablets, smart phones, etc. Plus they have their own media companies. Why aren't auto manufacturers putting a Sony button in their cars? They had all the resources and opportunity to create the products Apple has, yet didn't. There certainly must be some secret sauce at work with Apple.

 

I am not excited about seeing a Siri button in cars, though. When it comes to third-party integration I much prefer to see open standards used. Why should Ford, BMW, etc. let Apple use their cars as a profit  center? I'd much rather see some kind of voice control protocol defined and see other providers compete.

 

Long Apple.

 

- Jasen.

Maybe when Nokia (and RIM) goes bankrupt in the next two years, Apple can scarf up the guys responsible for that 41 megapixel camera in that phone of theirs.

Apple is successful because the leave the crumbs for others.

Even with a small percentage of the PC market, they make most of the profits. Its the same for smart phones.

They maintain their high margins by only selling the computers people are willing to buy despite the high margins. Also they make only a few SKUS with a great overlap in parts, software and engineering. 

Covering all the things that are considered a part of the PC market (to get greater share) would blow the strategy that makes them money.

If the rest of the market wanted Macs instead of what they are now buying (the low margin stuff Apple doesn't make) they'd already be Apple customers.

Can't get blood from a turnip, etc.

No particular reason the "Eyes Free" feature can't be universal plug-n-play. "Eyes Free" is the likely reasoning (along with the European common External Power Supply (EPS) rule) behind the supposed new dock connector for the new iPhone (assuming the rumors are true).

He had the choice of using that line or the "at the expense of how many Chinese workers lives" line. 

In a mature market which is becoming commoditized, there are two options:
1. As you recommend, cut prices to try to increase market share. That cuts into your profits - and competitors generally do the same thing, leading to a downward spiral.
2. Focus on niches where you can obtain a nice margin. That is what Apple does.

The latter is almost always a better option.


The very fact that they're private means that you'll never know for sure. However, Saudi Aramco is widely recognized as perhaps the largest private company. However, reports I've seen of their revenues are that they're roughly half of Exxon's size. If their operations are similar to Exxon (which is a HUGE assumption), they would not earn more than Exxon or Apple. Of course, if their margins are much higher, it's possible that they could make more profit than Apple.

Absolutely. However, some of the other figures weren't all that long ago so it might not change things.

The Newton was far ahead of its time and was a great device for its time, particularly by the time the second iteration came out. The only real problem with Newton was unrealistic expectations.

'Dying' is far too strong a word. 'Mature' is far more accurate. Maybe even 'commoditized'. The market's growth has essentially stopped even with Apple included. Without Apple, sales are declining. And there is less and less difference between the brands and less differentiation - which ultimately leads to reduced margins.

As a business owner I'd rather sell 1 @ $100 if it costs me $50 than 5 @ $60, essentially for the same profit. Most profitable companies that "get it" like Apple does would rather also.

Most will agree that there is great potential for Apple profits with iPads.

 

It appears that the competition cannot match the iPad in quality, price, ecosystem...

 

What is amazing to me is that this is an un-subsidized market.   Apple is not beholden to any carriers (or third-parties) to sell the iPad.

 

 

Hopefully, the next iPhone (the LTE) will run on any carrier.  If so, the potential exists, for the first time (in the US), for the iPhone buyer to pay full price for the device -- then negotiate among the carriers for the best service packages to satisfy their current and changing needs.

 

We have ATT family plan with 3 iPhones and 2 feature phones.  The big impediment to going "all iPhone" is the price of an individual data plan for each phone.

 

When the next iPhone arrives, we will have only 1 iPhone under contract.   We would gladly pay the ETF on a single iPhone if we could negotiate voice/text/data service tailored to our needs -- rather than tailored to the carriers needs.

 

Finally, I can see the day where you could purchase and pay for your iPhone and services with a single monthly payment to the iTunes store.

There's also the fact that Apple's technology has been so innovative and enabling that the value they have delivered to their customers (and the rest of the world, by simply spurring greater innovation in personal information tools) has far exceeded what people have paid for their Apple products.

Education, culture, economics, etc,— many things have been richly enhanced by Apple's leadership in making technology generally usable and ubiquitous. 

Exactly! Apple is enabling the world to do more than fish. Let them concentrate on that.

 

From the perspective of a [former] business owner selling Apple products.

 

What you say has a greater advantage than only the profit $.  

 

You and your $100 customer have a $50 relationship -- that is understood and appreciated by each party.   

 

Your competitor has a $10 relationship, each, with 5 parties -- understood by each, for what it is worth.

 

You are selling solutions, relationships, repeat business, reference sales...

 

Your competitor is selling price.

 

 

These 2 posts are so cogent!

 

If Apple had done nothing else -- the iPhone, alone, has given more [computer] solutions and opportunities to more people than everything that came before.

 

Yes, other devices and services have followed the iPhone -- but, they, too, can be considered as benefiting from the opportunity created by Apple.

What numbers for inflation? That's not making much sense!

 

 

Interesting. I think a lot of the hatred of Apple is focused on Steve Jobs. Ever since Jobs' death, I've wondered how the Steve-hating segment of the tech media would respond to Apple's successes and failures in his absence. Either way, whether Apple thrives or falters, there's going to be an anti-Steve sentiment buried in it. I figure it will go like this.

 

Apple announces record profits and sales.

 

"Ah, see, it was Tim Cook all along. Steve Jobs was just a poser, type-A personality putting himself out in front of the parade and taking credit for other people's work." (Have already seen a little bit of this, although not much. I suspect it will become a recurring theme.)

 

Apple announces decreased profits and sales.

 

"See, Steve Jobs was such a megalomaniacal control freak that his absence leaves the company in shambles and facing certain doom."

deleted

Why doesn't it make sense?

They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp

It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

 

Profit (or sales or market capitalization). $1B today is not the same as $1B in 1900 for example.

 

Exactly.

Sony's an interesting counter-example. Technically, they produce solid, useful products. I have one of their (many) "Sleep Machine" clock radios. My wife can't work it, and she's both well-educated and smart. I can, but I'm a techie of many years' standing. While I have had to demonstrate how to use some of the functions on her iPhone, one lesson (per function) has done it. Sony puts out multiple products to solve the same problem; they keep putting new stuff--none user-tested (apparently). Compare to Apple: no line improved more often that once a year; all user-tested to the nth degree. And finally, compare the aesthetics of Apple's products to those of Sony's. Any questions? QED.

Courtesy of Car and Driver posted June 18, 2012 at 12:47pm by Austin Lindberg

"... Apple’s new Eyes Free Siri integration, which will be a part of the iOS 6 software update, has generated quite a buzz since its announcement last week. Part of this is due to the limited amount of information that Apple and its partner manufacturers have provided. Basically, the new feature will allow users to access the iPhone’s personal assistant, Siri, via a voice-command button, and pass your voice from the car’s built-in microphone to the phone. Although Apple mentioned a list of nine automakers it’s working with to implement Eyes Free, few have had much to say about the announcement past generic enthusiasm. Fewer still have been forthcoming with details about how Eyes Free will be utilized or when compatible vehicles will be available. We spoke with engineers from Chevrolet and Mercedes-Benz to find out how Eyes Free will work in their vehicles.

It’s important to first point out that Siri is a software change, both for the car and the phone, and not one that affects hardware—existing voice-command buttons will be used to access the system through a Bluetooth connection. According to an engineer we spoke to, Apple’s software development includes a refinement in how Siri deals with high amounts of background noise—the in-car’s single mic can pick up road, wind, and engine noise that makes it difficult for Siri to comprehend commands. (In normal use, iPhones have a pair of built-in microphones with noise cancellation that are bypassed by the in-car mic during hands-free operation.) Apple has somehow solved the problem with the iOS6 changes that go along with Eyes Free.

Once the car and phone are running the correct software and paired over Bluetooth, the actual hardware interaction is fairly simple: The driver presses the voice-command button—usually located on the steering wheel to allow for “eyes-free” operation—and receives the normal Siri prompt over the car’s stereo speakers. The button press will have to be different from the normal momentary tap that brings up control of built-in systems such as navigation. To differentiate between the two types of requests, Chevy will use a press-and-hold (about a second or two) to access Siri; Mercedes has yet to determine the key combo its system will require. Other options we can foresee include a double tap, or maybe spelling Siri’s name with Morse code..."
Edited by MacBook Pro - 6/18/12 at 1:08pm

 

I don't believe for one moment that any car company will put a "Siri Button" on their steering wheels. Why would they limit themselves like that. A number of them have already come out and questioned Apples' statement.

 

It will be a generic button that you can pair with your iPhone or any other compatible smart phone.

 

The car companies make a lot of money from optional extras such as SatNav, etc - they are no going to give that money away to Apple.

I agree with you, it's a shame Wall Street doesn't!

The 'proof' is everywhere. Articles galore. Even here on Appleinsider.

What rock you been hiding under?

Apple is one of the greediest companies ever. Deal with it.

 

Your cynicism regarding charity is positively disgusting.

The analysts really are desperate to talk up Apple shares which just makes me suspicious of their motives.

 

If Apple was so clearly going to hot $1000 or $2000 or whatever the latest estimate is then why do they need all this pumping by the analysts? The stock would rise steadily week by week as it's obviously such a good investment.

 

The reason that isn't happening is because the investment fund managers are clever people. They have been burned by tech stock bubbles bursting in the past and are obviously cautious about it happening again. The higher the Apple stock price goes the greater their exposure to big losses if it all comes crashing back to earth like it did with the other stocks.

 

The simple reason the other stocks didn't keep going up and up is because sales eventually flattened out. That could easily happen to Apple as well. Yes there is huge potential sales in the smartphone and tablet markets but it's by no means guaranteed that Apple will reap those rewards long term. The tablet market could end up like the MP3 player market with the iPod dominating until eventually sales leveled off and start to fall. The smatphone market has white hot competition. All the big players are in there. It's hard to see one company dominating for too long.

Since when is making an estimate 'pumping'? Part of an analyst's job is to make predictions of where share price is going to be in the future. Doing so is not 'pumping' (which has a very different connotation.

I guess you (and the original poster) don't understand that: (i) Nominal cash flows discounted at the nominal discount rate produces the same value as real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) cash flows discounted at the real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) discount rate. (ii) The P/E ratio is an inflation-independent metric, i.e., there is no need to adjust P/E ratios for inflation in order to be able to compare it across time; in other words, it is perfectly valid to say that "MSFT in 20XX had a P/E ratio of 80x which implies a substantially higher valuation than Apple's 11x in 2012."

 

You're confusing two very different things, as was the original poster: market value is simply market value; what you can consume with it may be less than before, but then you're measuring something else altogether.

 

See above.

Quite possible that there are private enterprises that make more profit than AAPL. Insofar as they are "private" then we will never know.

Consider that the Roman Catholic Church holds vast numbers of works of art and the value of one work is, arguably, more valuable than all of AAPL: Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco.

Certain private hedge funds may have paper assets greater than AAPL. I could go on. The one certain example is the Roman Catholic Church, with art, architecture and world-wide real property holdings vastly greater than any public enterprise.

I would say that Apple is one of the least greedy companies ever—but one of the most competent companies ever. Their profits and cash pile reflect that.

They just built a $1 billion data center, which they're going to double in size, and they're planning another in Oregon. They're going to need another 10 or so around the world to carry out their long-range plans of doing things like reforming all the planet's information, knowledge and media systems, in order to change the world for the better—the original goal of their founders, one in particular. Stewart Brand and the other early Silicon Valley idealists know what we're talking about here.

Charity is a short-sighted short circuit compared to modernizing the world's education system.

The proof is everywhere. For example;

The $50 million Apple donated to help Stanford Medical Center build its new $2 billion hospital.
Apple's leading participation in Project RED, to which they have contributed $50 million to help women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/02/tim_cook_exposes_the_lie_that_steve_jobs_ignored_philanthropy_.html


Apple executives and officers donated more than $3 million worth of company shares to charitable causes during the holiday season of 2010.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/31/apple_execs_officers_donate_over_3_million_the_charity_for_the_holidays.html


Apple matches personal charitable contributions of employees up to $10,000 per year which could amount to several hundred million dollars annually.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/08/charitable_matching_of_up_to_10k_now_available_for_apple_employees.html

You can write to Tim Cook and tell him that. But I think the pricing argument is hand-waving FUD. I don't think Macs are priced out of reach, compared to PCs, which you seem to argue costs nothing extra, but in fact, it isn't free either. In other words, you can't argue that Mac costs "extra" whereas a PC doesn't because you already own one and can use for Android development. The PC still cost money in the first place.

A Mac Mini, including all software and Xcode IDE costs as low as $599. You can run Mac OSX and Windows 7 on it. With it, you can develop for 6 major platforms: Mac, iOS, Windows, WP7, Android, and web.

I think it's a good deal.

The wild card in the deck, unseen in this negative view, is the next phase of the portable computer revolution, which is just getting started. I'm not going to say what it is because you don't deserve to know. Even if you were told, you wouldn't understand.

The main point is that there is no bubble this time. We are seeing a new industry establishing right before our eyes—if they're open, that is.

But, you're getting into the area of priceless possessions. They cannot be bought sold or traded. They have no value in the traditional sense.

Shhhh... The first rule of Future Club is you do not talk about Future Club. You have been warned...

Not sure about any private companies. There is, however, a state-owned company that has humongous profits: Saudi Aramco. My guess is that their profits must be at least $100B currently.

 

Note: Fixed typos.

Edited by anantksundaram - 6/18/12 at 2:15pm

Ha! Thanks for the warning, will gladly comply. But I think you made this up.

I don't think he meant that PC sales would totally dry up. But the PC market is certainly going to shrink. It may shrink a lot over the next several years. Eventually, it may shrink so much that many PC vendors may stop making them.

Bullcrap!  Apple has never made their charitable giving a public boast. "Giving in secret" is the highest order of giving. Also by instituting corp matching donations, Apple is amplifying the effects of their employee's donations.