or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple & Samsung capture 103% of handset profits as rivals lose money
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple & Samsung capture 103% of handset profits as rivals lose money - Page 4

post #121 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

That wasn't your first mistake.

You're right again! My first mistake was debating accounting with someone that knows little about the subject.

post #122 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


That ratio doesn't have units. It can therefore give outputs that are undefined.

Oh boy....

post #123 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

You're right again! My first mistake was debating accounting with someone that knows little about the subject.

Again, for a person who took umbrage at "attacking the person, not the argument", that's a rather inconsistent thing to say, no?

 

Should I judge your knowledge of accounting based on your inability to define something as basic as 'profit margin'?

post #124 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

I don't have to find you an actual example of that happening.

Of course not.

 

The point is, you couldn't, even if you wanted to, and you know that.

post #125 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

, and you could have mentioned this rather than just typing "*snort*". 

Yeah, but it was pretty good blow.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #126 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh boy....

Good argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Of course not.

The point is, you couldn't, even if you wanted to, and you know that.

I explained why it's not necessary. Or did you not read that part of my post?
post #127 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


You're resorting to attacking a mistake in his grammar because you can no longer oppose his argument. Well, you could oppose it but you'd look like an idiot.

How cute. I didn't oppose or support his argument. But you jumped to that conclusion immediately because you were poised to pounce on anything. Spoiling for a fight just for the sake of it, eh? How cute.

post #128 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

You didn't even address his point. Use his example and do the math you're advocating.

Company A makes $100 in profits.
Company B has $100 in losses.

The industry net profit is $0.

You and jragosta are saying that in order yo determine Company A's share of the profits we make the following calculation:

Company profits/total industry profits = $100/$0 = infinity.

You are literally arguing for that to be possible and logical.

Sorry, a number divided by zero is not infinity. It is indeterminate (it approaches infinity).

Again, you and 'BrianCPA' keep making the most basic math mistakes, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

That's our whole point. Company A made $10 in profit but you're saying that they're profit is undefined. $10 in profit (or in this case 25% of all profits) is NOT undefined. It's absolutely a defined and definitive number that can be presented in a defined and definitive percentage.

And for the record: YES, APPLE AND SAMSUNG MADE MORE PROFIT THAT THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE. I don't disagree with you for a minute.

So if they made more profit than the industry as a whole, how is the percentage not over 100%?

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question in post #54. Where did the extra $10 come from if we do it your way?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #129 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


Good argument.
I explained why it's not necessary. Or did you not read that part of my post?

Oh, I did. It made no sense. Whatsoever.

post #130 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Oh, I did. It made no sense. Whatsoever.

I should have expected that. You don't seem to be one who understands math or logic.
post #131 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sorry, a number divided by zero is not infinity. It is indeterminate (it approaches infinity).

Again, you and 'BrianCPA' keep making the most basic math mistakes, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
So if they made more profit than the industry as a whole, how is the percentage not over 100%?

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question in post #54. Where did the extra $10 come from if we do it your way?

You're right. Making a math mistake invalidates everything I know. Just as you being wrong about this argument proves you don't know anything? Invalid logic.

 

You cannot have profit percentages over 100%. I get what you're saying, I know how you came up with your number. It's a cute spin on math but when you are presenting "profit percentages" you don't include losses. You include losses when calculating total industry profit, you include losses when adding segments together, but you do NOT include losses when you are presenting PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS. Percentage of profits specifically means what percentage of profits. Losses are not profits.

 

That's the only point I'm trying to make. Yes, they made more than the total of the market. You can't make more than 100% of revenues, you can't take more than 100% of expenses, and you can't take more that 100% of profits.

 

 

I have nothing to say about post #54 because (1) I did not read it and (2) that was not me you were talking to in that post.

post #132 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post


I should have expected that. You don't seem to be one who understands math or logic.

I'll ignore the putdown.

 

If someone else can explain what you wrote, I'd be happy to respond. It surely could be a function of the limitations of my brain's processing capabilities -- although I happen to think it's your inability express your idea clearly -- but your post made no sense at all.

post #133 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

You cannot have profit percentages over 100%. I get what you're saying, I know how you came up with your number. It's a cute spin on math but when you are presenting "profit percentages" you don't include losses. You include losses when calculating total industry profit, you include losses when adding segments together, but you do NOT include losses when you are presenting PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS. Percentage of profits specifically means what percentage of profits. Losses are not profits.

That's the only point I'm trying to make. Yes, they made more than the total of the market. You can't make more than 100% of revenues, you can't take more than 100% of expenses, and you can't take more that 100% of profits.

Why do you think that repeating the same circular argument over and over will make ti come true? It doesn't. "You can't have more than 100% of the profits because you can't have more than 100% of the arguments" is an obvious logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

I have nothing to say about post #54 because (1) I did not read it and (2) that was not me you were talking to in that post.

And (3) it proves that I'm right and you're too stubborn to admit it.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #134 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post

You're right again! My first mistake was debating accounting with someone that knows little about the subject.

No, your first mistake was pretending to be a CPA when you obviously don't understand even the most basic financial principles like profit.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #135 of 178

LOL loving the Accountants "R" Us TM banter.

 

Reminds me of when sportspeople get off the field and say "I gave it 110% out there today".

I will NEVER pay $679 for an 8GB plastic cell phone
Reply
I will NEVER pay $679 for an 8GB plastic cell phone
Reply
post #136 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Sure, let me help you. Using the same methodology you show for Samsung (which, btw, you agree has operating income <$5B, which is exactly what I said in my original post).

 

Yep, I was finding and posting info to support your theory.   You're welcome  1wink.gif

 

Quote:

Let's take 4Q12, for example. Apple's segment reports show us iPad + iPhone revenue of $41.33B. Apple's operating margin is 31.57%. If the ratio is the same, estimated operating profit = $13.04B. Note: That is actually higher than what the article says it is, without even counting iPods (many of which are connected mobile devices too!).

 

Apparently they're only talking about handsets.  No tablets.  So that explains it.

 

$30.66B iPhone revenue @ 40% margin  = $12.264B operating profits.


Edited by KDarling - 2/6/13 at 2:44pm
post #137 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post

LOL loving the Accountants "R" Us TM banter.

 

My older brother's an actuary.  They're the guys who figure out how to charge for insurance, etc.  Basically, how long each group will live and so forth.

 

They make accountants look like party animals.

 

Q:  What's the definition of an actuary?

A:   He's like an accountant, but without their sense of humor.

post #138 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, your first mistake was pretending to be a CPA when you obviously don't understand even the most basic financial principles like profit.

Says the person claiming that profit can be negative.
post #139 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Quote:
Sorry, a number divided by zero is not infinity. It is indeterminate (it approaches infinity).

Again, you and 'BrianCPA' keep making the most basic math mistakes, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

You're right. I should have used “ indeterminate" rather than infinity. Now act like that's what I wrote and argue against my point instead of playing word games.
post #140 of 178
I'm not sure why it's putting my comment as your quote...
post #141 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Then there wouldn't be a masturebate.

edit: Um, that was suppose to be 'math debate'.

What I wouldn't give for your ~/Library/Spelling/LocalDictionary
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #142 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sorry, a number divided by zero is not infinity. It is indeterminate (it approaches infinity).

Again, you and 'BrianCPA' keep making the most basic math mistakes, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
So if they made more profit than the industry as a whole, how is the percentage not over 100%?

Furthermore, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question in post #54. Where did the extra $10 come from if we do it your way?

What amazes me is you have a grasp on the math but not a clue how to apply it.
post #143 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

What amazes me is you have a grasp on the math but not a clue how to apply it.

And, yet, you still haven't responded to post #54 and explained where the extra $10 came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Says the person claiming that profit can be negative.

It can. I already provided a link. Here's another one:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/reasons-negative-profit-margin-19358.html

Maybe you should look at Amazon's year-end results. Look at the 'profit' column. Notice the negative number?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #144 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post

Says the person claiming that profit can be negative.

Again a profit can be negative when compared to a higher profit, but both are still positive.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #145 of 178
Here is Nokia's report right from their website. I've linked to the PDF as well as included an annotated screenshot that clearly shows a negative profit and not simple zero as some are saying profit can not be reported as a loss.



"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #146 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Here is Nokia's report right from their website. I've linked to the PDF as well as included an annotated screenshot that clearly shows a negative profit and not simple zero as some are saying profit can not be reported as a loss.




Simply because there isn't a 'losess' option.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #147 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Simply because there isn't a 'losess' option.

Simply because a separate line for 'loss' would be redundant. By definition, a negative profit is a loss.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #148 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Simply because a separate line for 'loss' would be redundant. By definition, a negative profit is a loss.

It's not there because businesses are not in the business of losing money.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #149 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Here is Nokia's report right from their website. I've linked to the PDF as well as included an annotated screenshot that clearly shows a negative profit and not simple zero as some are saying profit can not be reported as a loss.




Heh heh. The blowhards here will totally ignore your post.
post #150 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Simply because there isn't a 'losess' option.

LOL. This has to be the most embarrassing post in this thread. And that's saying a lot.....
post #151 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Here is Nokia's report right from their website. I've linked to the PDF as well as included an annotated screenshot that clearly shows a negative profit and not simple zero as some are saying profit can not be reported as a loss.




Negative profit is profit realized from effective loss prevention. For example, A company introduces a new procedure that reduces loss by 5%. This 5% is actually profit that would not have been. In essence negative profit is when one loses less than it should have lost. Company A was expected to lose $10 million but instead only lost $5 million, it would show a $5 million negative profit.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #152 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

LOL. This has to be the most embarrassing post in this thread. And that's saying a lot.....

Flatterery will get you nowhere lol
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #153 of 178

Yeah they did a cute analysis to come up with the 103% they make is look like Apple and Samsung took money from the companies who lost money. It is absolutely a bad way to look at it, the fact a company lost money does not mean the market had some sort of negative value. I hate when analysis do this crap. it like saying you giving 110% effort. your creating energy you do not have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You've been corrected on this before.

Take a hypothetical market:

Company A $100 profit
Company B $200 profit
Company C $100 loss

The total profits for the industry are $200, not $300. So with the total profits of $200, Company A had 50% of the market's profits and Company B had 100% of market profits.

It works exactly like your taxes. If you have two businesses and one of them earns $1,000 and the other one loses $500, your net reported income would be $500.
post #154 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Negative profit is profit realized from effective loss prevention. For example, A company introduces a new procedure that reduces loss by 5%. This 5% is actually profit that would not have been. In essence negative profit is when one loses less than it should have lost. Company A was expected to lose $10 million but instead only lost $5 million, it would show a $5 million negative profit.

"Negative Profit" as you are describing it is a different concept.

The concept we are talking about is "profit which happens to be below zero" or "profit which is negative". In fact, "negative profit" in the sense you are using it is not a standard GAAP term and is rather something used mostly by academics and consultants. In 3 decades of business management, I've NEVER seen the term used in the sense that you are using it in this post. I first heard about it when searching for 'negative profit' to find links for this thread.

Several of us have called it "negative profit" which is subject to confusion because the term can be used in both the sense that you are using it here and the sense that every other post in this thread is using it. Either one is correct - and since everyone but you is talking about the same thing, the confusion is minor. And the fact that "negative profit" in the sense that the rest of us are using it IS a GAAP term means that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the way it's being used in this thread.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #155 of 178

Entertaining thread.

 

Just to beat the dead horse, as I understand it the original argument is over two (at least) methods of calculating some ostensibly useful number, whether "value share" (as in the post) or "profit share" or "profit percentage" or what-have-you.

 

Method A: Take all of the companies involved in selling the widgets. Add up all the money the profitable companies made in profits. Subtract all the money the unprofitable ones lost (or if you prefer, add their negative profits). There is then a pool of money that you can call aggregate profit for the industry. Use this number as the denominator for each company; each company's share is their profit divided by this number.

 

Method B: Take only the profitable companies. Tally up all of their profits, and use that as the denominator; each company's share is their profit divided by this number.

 

Sidestepping the question of which is the "right" way or the "industry standard" way, it seems to me that the number produced by Method A yields less useful information than in Method B. If a company has a value of 500% under Method A, it seems impossible to know whether that's good or bad without knowing more about the market as a whole. First, you have to know whether the market was profitable overall - if not, than any positive number is bad. Second, you have to know what all of the other players got. If company A's number is 500% and company B's is 10%, that's fine for company A, but if company A has that same 500% while company B has 15000%, that's less good. In any case, you need more information than the single number provides. Furthermore, it seems very difficult to compare over time - if a wildly incompetent company enters your market, the number could skyrocket - up to a point, and then suddenly flip to a negative as that other company's red ink pulls the overall market into the red.

 

With Method B on the other hand, you can know right away that if you're at, say, 50%, that's probably pretty good. It's better if that number increases than if it decreases. If you didn't make the cut at all, that's not good. You don't need to know much about the rest of the field to know at a glance how you're doing because you know what the range is (0-100%). Are there things Method A can tell you that Method B cannot? Probably so, but the number you get seems much more straightforward in B.

post #156 of 178
Numbers seems to be "massaged". How can they make more profit than what is possible?
post #157 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Lurksalot View Post

Entertaining thread.



 



Just to beat the dead horse, as I understand it the original argument is over two (at least) methods of calculating some ostensibly useful number, whether "value share" (as in the post) or "profit share" or "profit percentage" or what-have-you.



 



Method A: Take all of the companies involved in selling the widgets. Add up all the money the profitable companies made in profits. Subtract all the money the unprofitable ones lost (or if you prefer, add their negative profits). There is then a pool of money that you can call aggregate profit for the industry. Use this number as the denominator for each company; each company's share is their profit divided by this number.



 



Method B: Take only the profitable companies. Tally up all of their profits, and use that as the denominator; each company's share is their profit divided by this number.



 



Sidestepping the question of which is the "right" way or the "industry standard" way, it seems to me that the number produced by Method A yields less useful information than in Method B. If a company has a value of 500% under Method A, it seems impossible to know whether that's good or bad without knowing more about the market as a whole. First, you have to know whether the market was profitable overall - if not, than any positive number is bad. Second, you have to know what all of the other players got. If company A's number is 500% and company B's is 10%, that's fine for company A, but if company A has that same 500% while company B has 15000%, that's less good. In any case, you need more information than the single number provides. Furthermore, it seems very difficult to compare over time - if a wildly incompetent company enters your market, the number could skyrocket - up to a point, and then suddenly flip to a negative as that other company's red ink pulls the overall market into the red.



 



With Method B on the other hand, you can know right away that if you're at, say, 50%, that's probably pretty good. It's better if that number increases than if it decreases. If you didn't make the cut at all, that's not good. You don't need to know much about the rest of the field to know at a glance how you're doing because you know what the range is (0-100%). Are there things Method A can tell you that Method B cannot? Probably so, but the number you get seems much more straightforward in B.



Your method is extremely misleading - which is why no one (except for a couple of misguided people here use it).

Look at my post #54, for example, to show why that method is wrong.

If you want to compare yourself to a limited subset of companies, you can, of course, do that. But if you want to compare your company to the market, it only makes sense to consider the WHOLE market, not just the companies you choose to include.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #158 of 178
So... Some future headlines could read:

"Nokia stuns with 100% of handset profits"
Nokiainsider

"Samsung rockets to 500% phone industry profits"
Samsunginsider

"IPhone stumbles with 20,000% of the mobile pie"
Appleinsider



I understand the maths. I get the logic... But use a little common sense people.
post #159 of 178

Quite a spirited debate for a thread dominated by math geeks like me.

 

The way I look at it, it doesn't make sense to add profits and losses of the industry together to determine the net profits of the industry, then assign who made what percentage of the net profits.  For example, consider an industry that is a duopoly in which company A has a profit of $1000 and company B has a loss of $2000.  The net profit of the industry is -$1000.  So company A has $1000/-$1000*100% = -100% of the profits, while company B has -$2000/-$1000*100% = 200% of the profits, even though it reported a loss.  It makes much more sense to say that company A has 100% of the profits (well, after all, it does have all of them) and that company B has 100% of the industry's losses (once again, completely accurate).

 

This illustrates why common sense needs to be applied to mathematics when they are used in the real world. Although you can theoretically report a company's proportion of an industry's net profits, it only makes sense to report what portion the company has of the industry's profits or what portion it has of the industry's losses, because its portion of the "net profits" is meaningless.

post #160 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by wstanich View Post

Quite a spirited debate for a thread dominated by math geeks like me.

The way I look at it, it doesn't make sense to add profits and losses of the industry together to determine the net profits of the industry, then assign who made what percentage of the net profits.  

Whether you think it makes sense or not is irrelevant. That's the way it is done in Industry. It is also consistent with GAAP principles.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple & Samsung capture 103% of handset profits as rivals lose money