or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple's earnings predicted to shrink 14% in first half of 2013, but grow 15% to close the year
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's earnings predicted to shrink 14% in first half of 2013, but grow 15% to close the year

post #1 of 57
Thread Starter 
Noted AAPL bull Gene Munster has softened his outlook for the company through the first half of 2013, though he expects that Apple will rebound and return to growth to close out the year.

Munster


The Piper Jaffray analyst issued a note to investors on Tuesday in which he reiterated his overweight rating and $767 price target, but said he expects Apple to see earnings dip 14 percent in the first half of 2013.

For the back half of the year, he expects Apple to have several new product launches in the works. He believes those announcements will reaccelerate earnings growth to a positive 15 percent.

Even if Apple does hold an event to announce a new iPad in April, as some rumors have suggested, Munster doesn't believe it would have a material impact on AAPL shares. Munster had previously expected an April event, but now says with the month fast approaching and no recent rumors or indications, he expects Apple to not make any announcements until its annual Worldwide Developers Conference in June.

Things are predicted begin to turn around at the end of June, when Munster expects Apple will announce its next-generation iPhone. He also expects a new low-cost iPhone to debut in September.

He also believes that Apple will announce a television set in the December quarter this year, and will also introduce a smart watch at some point in the future. While neither of these products are expected to have a significant effect on Apple's bottom line, he believes they would help to convince investors that Apple is a company that will continue to innovate after the loss of co-founder Steve Jobs.

As for the company's soon-to-conclude March quarter, Munster predicts that Apple will earn $41.4 billion in revenue, below Wall Street expectations of $42.8 billion but within Apple's guidance of $41 billion to $43 billion.

Munster


His numbers call for Apple to sell 35.5 million iPhones in the March quarter, lower than Wall Street expectations. His Mac prediction of 3.8 million units is also below the Street's 4.2 million. Munster has also forecast lower margins (38 percent) than the STreet (39 to 40 percent).

The analyst does, however, expect Apple to increase its annual dividend from $10.60 to $14, based on using cash generated only in the U.S. He does not expect Apple to announce an increased share buyback program.
post #2 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Noted AAPL bull Gene Munster who has never been even partially accurate in any of his previous predictions about Apple has softened his outlook for the company through the first half of 2013, though he expects that Apple will rebound and return to growth to close out the year..

There. I fixed that for you.
"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 #3 of 57

There was an interesting (and very opinionated) piece on The Register yesterday about why Apple's stock tanked.

 

I have a little more faith in Tim Cook's frugality than the author but it's worth a read as a counterpoint to the usual analysis on AI.

post #4 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

There was an interesting (and very opinionated) piece on The Register yesterday about why Apple's stock tanked.

 

I have a little more faith in Tim Cook's frugality than the author but it's worth a read as a counterpoint to the usual analysis on AI.

So one of those stupid analysts was for once right about AAPL's short-term future and now he thinks he knows it all.

 

Strangely I still don't give a penny for his opinion.

 

And as for TC, I think he is doing a brilliant job. Nothing to complain there. Nothing at all.

post #5 of 57
More FUD. Seems like its a 24/7 business.
post #6 of 57
I think the only reason these so called analysts are making any predictions about Apple at all is because when they don't do so they don't get their names in the media.
post #7 of 57
I sont know if i have ever read a smarmier author. Wont read him again though.
post #8 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

There was an interesting (and very opinionated) piece on The Register yesterday about why Apple's stock tanked.

 

I have a little more faith in Tim Cook's frugality than the author but it's worth a read as a counterpoint to the usual analysis on AI.

The Register is a tech rag for extreme morons. Don't read it, it makes people say silly things.

post #9 of 57
Thats is why they are called anal-yeast!
post #10 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilgto64 View Post

I think the only reason these so called analysts are making any predictions about Apple at all is because when they don't do so they don't get their names in the media.

I couldn't agree more.  I am tired of the daily "predictions" these morons dream up.

post #11 of 57

I don't know why you guys are so harsh on Gene Munster, he is one of the few analysts that doesn't appear to deliberately play the markets.

Yet you seem to revere some of the other assholes who transparently do.

post #12 of 57

I'm sorry,

 

I only see revenue (YoY) growth on that graph. Where's the decline?

post #13 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

There was an interesting (and very opinionated) piece on The Register yesterday about why Apple's stock tanked.

 

I have a little more faith in Tim Cook's frugality than the author but it's worth a read as a counterpoint to the usual analysis on AI.

Absolute crapola.

 

I stopped reading at "...just shy of $800..." (look up AAPL's all-time high to see what I mean).

 

Tells me all I need to know about the rest of the piece.

post #14 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

The Register is a tech rag for extreme morons. Don't read it, it makes people say silly things.

 

I disagree. Their news coverage is generally low-quality link bait but some of the guest articles and longer pieces are wonderful.

post #15 of 57
When it comes to the big three financial rags, Fortune, Forbes and Barron's, ther has scarcely been a single mildly positive article regarding Apple in the last year. Oh, throw in the New York Times. I realize they all get click bait revenue, but that doesn't explain everything because any article with Apple in it will get clicked on.

No, it's almost as if somebody is paying them to run these negative articles. They make Apple sound like a Disaster, when, if they did nothing for the next three years they would still be among the top cash holders in the world.

So, who is paying these publications? Methinks Samsung is spending an awful lot on 'advertising'...Google?

I realize that Fortune Forbes and Barron's cannot survive without this injection of money. All of Publishing is in some trouble especially the periodicals. Too bad they have to stoop to Yellow Journalism indeed.

What's a good way to prove it?
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #16 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

I disagree. Their news coverage is generally low-quality link bait but some of the guest articles and longer pieces are wonderful.

Yeah particularly the article you mentioned earlier is so...  so... so.. Oh! It's pure poetry! A real masterpiece.

 

Do I have to put a /s tag there?

post #17 of 57

Don't you guys think that some of you here on AI are getting so emotionally attached to AAPL that you disregard any critique whether valid or not? As you may note I have been on this forum for 8 years, and for the most part being an avid Apple fun and perennial AAPL bull. But things started to look fragile to me sometime in the mid 2012. After iPhone 5 came out, it confirmed my worst fears: AAPL is going to slide down and down. I tried to argue my position here and suggested to sell the stock while it was still high relative to today's value but... some of my posts were simply blocked by administrators. Look, I know what FUD is. In early days of AAPL bullish run, there was plenty of FUD and I just disregarded it. And I am not saying here that Gene Munster is right here... no, he should have turned bearish last year. What I am saying is that your suspicions of FUD, can make you believe that any negative talk about AAPL at any time is just FUD. Well, you guys will keep losing money with such an attitude. I think AAPL slide will continue till it hits $300s unless I see some drastic changes in Apple management and its product line. When Philip Elmer-DeWitt was pumping up bullish calls of Andy Zaky last year, I advised him not to follow Zaky as his calls where based on simplistic extrapolation of earnings that are only right as long as the stock is climbing. The extrapolation technique has no visibility, it blinds you from spotting upcoming crucial shifts in the companies direction, and, consequently, its profits. Only few followed my advice and, hopefully saved money. I think instead of arguing here we should just place our bets and see who's right...

post #18 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by palomine View Post

When it comes to the big three financial rags, Fortune, Forbes and Barron's, ther has scarcely been a single mildly positive article regarding Apple in the last year. Oh, throw in the New York Times. I realize they all get click bait revenue, but that doesn't explain everything because any article with Apple in it will get clicked on.

No, it's almost as if somebody is paying them to run these negative articles. They make Apple sound like a Disaster, when, if they did nothing for the next three years they would still be among the top cash holders in the world.

So, who is paying these publications? Methinks Samsung is spending an awful lot on 'advertising'...Google?

I realize that Fortune Forbes and Barron's cannot survive without this injection of money. All of Publishing is in some trouble especially the periodicals. Too bad they have to stoop to Yellow Journalism indeed.

What's a good way to prove it?

Sounds really horrible what you are suggesting, but don't see many other options. To prove that on the other hand, is not very easy.

post #19 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I disagree. Their news coverage is generally low-quality link bait but some of the guest articles and longer pieces are wonderful.

Uh huh. So an article that talks about 'fondleslabs' is fair and unbiased?

Then look at his clever use of the facts. Apple's all-time high was 705. He calls that "just shy of $800".

Then he says that he predicted that Apple would fall "way back in November". Well, considering that Apple had dropped to the low 500s by early November, that's not much of a prediction, is it?



The Register stinks as a source of information, but this article is low - even for them.
"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 #20 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

Don't you guys think that some of you here on AI are getting so emotionally attached to AAPL that you disregard any critique whether valid or not?

Well, if we seen a valid critique of AAPL, you can ask the question then. Until then, your question is purely hypothetical.

Apple is still growing. They're still the most profitable company on the planet. They're still driving the industry forward as everyone seems to go out of their way to copy Apple. Yet AAPL is trading at 7 time cash-adjusted earnings while the average, run of the mill, hum-drum stock is trading at 16.

EVEN IF Apple were to suddenly become a purely average company with average results, they're still trading at less than half of what the market considers a fair P/E. So where's the valid explanation?
"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 #21 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by palomine View Post

When it comes to the big three financial rags, Fortune, Forbes and Barron's, ther has scarcely been a single mildly positive article regarding Apple in the last year. Oh, throw in the New York Times. I realize they all get click bait revenue, but that doesn't explain everything because any article with Apple in it will get clicked on.

No, it's almost as if somebody is paying them to run these negative articles. They make Apple sound like a Disaster, when, if they did nothing for the next three years they would still be among the top cash holders in the world.

So, who is paying these publications? Methinks Samsung is spending an awful lot on 'advertising'...Google?

I realize that Fortune Forbes and Barron's cannot survive without this injection of money. All of Publishing is in some trouble especially the periodicals. Too bad they have to stoop to Yellow Journalism indeed.

What's a good way to prove it?

The SEC could, in principle, go after analysts who post highly negative commentary and then profit from it. That's extremely hard to do, though. Most of the big firms are clever enough to keep their groups separate so they can claim no insider information - at least on paper.

I'm not convinced that anyone is being paid to write these articles, though. It's the same kind of nonsense that Apple has had to deal with for 30 years. FUD sells clicks. Particularly FUD about Apple - since all the more 'clever' analysts play the 'cult' game and pretend that they're above all that. It's hard for them to understand that quality sells and that some people appreciate the value that Apple brings to the table. Back in the 90s, it was all about how Apple was dying ('beleaguered' was the standard term) because it was overpriced and incompatible. For the last 10 years, it has been about how they wont' sell cheaper products to appeal to the masses (ignoring, of course, the fact that Apple sells more tablets and, possibly, more smart phones than anyone else).

There seems to be some mass hysteria. You don't see lots of whining from the press that Mercedes needs to sell cheaper products. Or Ferrari. Or Rolex. Or any other high end supplier. Somehow, the "everything has to be cheap" seems to apply only to Apple products.
"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 #22 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

Don't you guys think that some of you here on AI are getting so emotionally attached to AAPL that you disregard any critique whether valid or not? As you may note I have been on this forum for 8 years, and for the most part being an avid Apple fun and perennial AAPL bull. But things started to look fragile to me sometime in the mid 2012. After iPhone 5 came out, it confirmed my worst fears: AAPL is going to slide down and down. I tried to argue my position here and suggested to sell the stock while it was still high relative to today's value but... some of my posts were simply blocked by administrators. Look, I know what FUD is. In early days of AAPL bullish run, there was plenty of FUD and I just disregarded it. And I am not saying here that Gene Munster is right here... no, he should have turned bearish last year. What I am saying is that your suspicions of FUD, can make you believe that any negative talk about AAPL at any time is just FUD. Well, you guys will keep losing money with such an attitude. I think AAPL slide will continue till it hits $300s unless I see some drastic changes in Apple management and its product line. When Philip Elmer-DeWitt was pumping up bullish calls of Andy Zaky last year, I advised him not to follow Zaky as his calls where based on simplistic extrapolation of earnings that are only right as long as the stock is climbing. The extrapolation technique has no visibility, it blinds you from spotting upcoming crucial shifts in the companies direction, and, consequently, its profits. Only few followed my advice and, hopefully saved money. I think instead of arguing here we should just place our bets and see who's right...

People are more likely to read what you write if you use paragraphing.

post #23 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

I don't know why you guys are so harsh on Gene Munster, he is one of the few analysts that doesn't appear to deliberately play the markets.

Yet you seem to revere some of the other assholes who transparently do.


I have to agree. His track record with the specific numbers may not be exceptional, but there have certainly been times when it sounded like he was the only "professional" analyst who actually understood Apple and its market, especially in the pre-iPhone days when people were paying less attention in general.

post #24 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Well, if we seen a valid critique of AAPL, you can ask the question then. Until then, your question is purely hypothetical.

Apple is still growing.

First, I provided critique but some of my posts were blocked just because they were negative about Apple. 

 

Second, you are missing the point when claiming "Apple is still growing." Yes, it is growing but this is not what you need to look for when investing in AAPL.

What is crucial here is that the rate of growth is slowing - it's concave down, not up. It is still increasing but it's concave down. And that is lethal to the bullish run. Bud dig dipper. Understand WHY it's concave down. The short answer is Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs.

post #25 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

 Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs.

Oh! Now you say it. I always thought... Oh well.

post #26 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

First, I provided critique but some of my posts were blocked just because they were negative about Apple. 

 

Second, you are missing the point when claiming "Apple is still growing." Yes, it is growing but this is not what you need to look for when investing in AAPL.

What is crucial here is that the rate of growth is slowing - it's concave down, not up. It is still increasing but it's concave down. And that is lethal to the bullish run. Bud dig dipper. Understand WHY it's concave down. The short answer is Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs.

No.

 

The short answer is that earth is a finite place.

In one quarter, Apple sells 2 million iPhones, in the next one, Apple sells 4 million. That's 100% growth (+2million iPhones)! Stock flies because of people like you...

In one quarter, Apple sells 35 million iPhones, In the next one, Apple sells 47.5 million. That's less than 50% growth (+12.5 million iPhones)! Growth was down more than 50%!Sell sell sell!!

 

Who cares that about every single other phone maker is bleeding money. Who cares that Apple makes more money from phones that 3x all of them combined. Who cares Apple is now the most lucrative company in the world and earning more and more while the others are going down eliminating their own margins to earn market share. That's doom!

 

Who cares that Apple makes more money from iPhones than Samsung from tanks, missiles, corruption and mafia, manufacture, phones, TVs, washing machines, theft, etc.

 

Who cares that every single competitor to Apple innovates 0! they only put bigger screens...

 

"Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs"... Ooooh the stupidity and limitation of some people.

post #27 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

The short answer is Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs.

No, the short answer is that they are in-between products.

In addition to what pedromartins says above.
post #28 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

Yeah particularly the article you mentioned earlier is so...  so... so.. Oh! It's pure poetry! A real masterpiece.

 

Do I have to put a /s tag there?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Uh huh. So an article that talks about 'fondleslabs' is fair and unbiased?

Then look at his clever use of the facts. Apple's all-time high was 705. He calls that "just shy of $800".

Then he says that he predicted that Apple would fall "way back in November". Well, considering that Apple had dropped to the low 500s by early November, that's not much of a prediction, is it?

The Register stinks as a source of information, but this article is low - even for them.

 

I never said that I agreed with the article and there's certainly some creative embellishment of the facts (no worse than a DED piece though). However, there's some interesting points in there about why Apple's share price has fallen away. I've yet to read any better explanations on AI. How does a company deal with a large cash pile? 

post #29 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

 

"Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs"... Ooooh the stupidity and limitation of some people.

Well... I do not know if you underestimate Steve Jobs or overestimate Tim Cook but you seem to be way too emotional about the issue. I understand that if you have been losing money on AAPL lately. I said TC is no SJ is a short answer as I do not want to bother readers here with long posts. If you care about point by point list of mistakes Tim Cook made and the underlying reasons for AAPL weakness, then just google: AAPL DNA principles (the top link) and see where you disagree with me.

post #30 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

Well... I do not know if you underestimate Steve Jobs or overestimate Tim Cook but you seem to be way too emotional about the issue. I understand that if you have been losing money on AAPL lately. I said TC is no SJ is a short answer as I do not want to bother readers here with long posts. If you care about point by point list of mistakes Tim Cook made and the underlying reasons for AAPL weakness, then just google: AAPL DNA principles (the top link) and see where you disagree with me.

I'm a 21 YO student, i'm not losing money on anything.

 

"APPL weakness"??? What the hell are you talking about?

Stock is a manipulation game, perfect for limited people. Everyone knows that. The better scammer earns money.

 

Apple's performance (strength) has nothing to do with the stock. Far from it. If you can't see that, educate yourself and gain a little more "common sense".

post #31 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

...The short answer is Tim Cook ain't Steve Jobs.

Really? Why didn't Steve spend $$$ to build a cloning machine? I guess we can blame that on Cook too. /s
post #32 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post


I never said that I agreed with the article and there's certainly some creative embellishment of the facts (no worse than a DED piece though). However, there's some interesting points in there about why Apple's share price has fallen away. I've yet to read any better explanations on AI. How does a company deal with a large cash pile? 

The "interesting points" are meaningless. Even a most basic knowledge of business finance would have demonstrated that to the author.

(Hint: Growing cash should not cause the share price to decline. Even if you buy their argument that Apple will get sloppy in how they use the cash, the worst case scenario is that it would slow the growth rate).
"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 #33 of 57

Unfortunately, the article makes no mention of the facts behind Apple's supposed "shrinkage," which is in reality a "year over year decline in growth."

 

So why is Apple's growth less than the year ago quarter? Because Apple signed up major new carriers (including China!) in the year ago quarter. There's getting to be fewer major new expansions that are possible (although China Mobile is still coming), so growth going forward isn't always going to jump up as rapidly, particularly in the typically slow (for iPhone) spring quarter.

 

When people discover such a change in Apple's sales cycles, distill it down to a negative percentage (despite the fact that it's still growth in an industry full of failure and flatlining), it's simply dishonest to harp on it while suggesting that it's proof Apple is crumbling into the sea. Because that facts don't support such a ridiculous scenario.

 

And yet, for every year since the iPhone came out, there has been a spring "crisis" invented by the media (well, fed to the media by Apple's competitors) that has proven to be very wrong every year.

 

Reporting this like it's never happened before is simply ignorant. 

post #34 of 57
This has been a great forum regarding appl's stock. Very good points made here. Like some of you I agree the drop on price seems extreme based off the revenue being generated. This scenario can easily be looked at from both opposite directions. No company could sustain the growth rate and a reduction in that growth rate has to be expected. Expected or not, the stock tanked. Clearly anyone that held on, like me, has to acknowledge that we were on the wrong side of the trade, regardless of the reason. While I do believe the company will recover, it may not. It's a very interesting trade, upside potential seems high, yet, if they miss on the upcoming earnings the downside could be substantial. Can anybody off a solution? If I'm holding a few thousand shares what option method would you suggest to limit downside but still be able to participate in upside potential if they have a good report?
post #35 of 57
Originally Posted by SCProfessor View Post
We're mostly here. Engines, life support... There's red lines through her lateral structural members. She's broke her back, she'll never jump again.

 

In response to the response to that line: LIKE FUN.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #36 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by skleiniv View Post
Clearly anyone that held on, like me, has to acknowledge that we were on the wrong side of the trade, regardless of the reason. While I do believe the company will recover, it may not. It's a very interesting trade, upside potential seems high, yet, if they miss on the upcoming earnings the downside could be substantial. Can anybody off a solution? If I'm holding a few thousand shares what option method would you suggest to limit downside but still be able to participate in upside potential if they have a good report?

Your ability to acknowledge being wrong is admirable, particularly on this forum. This, in turn, leads you to reason how to protect your capital. Many Apple zealots, like those ship that Andy Zaky took to a slaughter, realized that they were dead wrong only when their wallet got empty. Few thousand shares is enough to fund a good chunk of retirement. I would just sell and lock profits (assuming you bought at a lower price). But if you are determined to keep all your shares, then you can insure against downside buy buying cheap put spreads or plain vanilla puts.

 

For example, say, you reasonably worry that Apple will, yet again, miss earnings (in April) and stock will plunge lower than its recent lows. You buy May vertical put spreads $400-$420 sometime before earnings. Currently they run for around $3 but might get cheaper if the bullish market takes AAPL higher prior to its earnings. Please, bear in mind that this is a high risk trade and the entire $3 per spread might evaporate (but not more than that). Consider this like insurance premiums. If AAPL indeed drops to $400 or below, your put spreads gain over 600%. Not so shabby.

If you worry that AAPL drop will be of historic proportions, say to $360, then it makes sense just to buy puts (instead of put spreads). May $400 puts cost around $3 per share. Again, the entire $3 can be lost but if AAPL drop to $360, you gain over 1200%.

 

What was barbaric in Zaky's approach is that instead of advising his clients to buy put spreads, he urged his followers to trade shares to bullish call spreads - at the time when AAPL was destined to fall (it took me 5 minutes of playing with iPhone 5 shortly after its release to realize the stock is doomed). Yes, it's screen size, stupid. (but that's all together another topic). 

post #37 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

... at the time when AAPL was destined to fall (it took me 5 minutes of playing with iPhone 5 shortly after its release to realize the stock is doomed). Yes, it's screen size, stupid. (but that's all together another topic). 

Wow. Record iPhones sold in the Dec qtr. what are you smoking? The 5 and 4 both outsold(shipped) the GS3.
post #38 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Wow. Record iPhones sold in the Dec qtr. what are you smoking? The 5 and 4 both outsold(shipped) the GS3.

 

This is utterly bizarre. The blinding force that makes Apple fans not see the obvious. The share price lost well over $200. What other proof you need that iPhone 5 underperformed? Of course, it outsold GS3. If it didn't AAPL would be under $300. It just did not sell enough. If Steve Jobs was alive, I am absolutely convinced that he would sense by early 2012 that a smartphone with a larger screen is easier to use, and iPhone 5 would have 5" stunning screen, be the easiest to use smartphone in the world, sell over 60 million and drive AAPL to over $800. But you have Tim Cook, a brilliant accountant but, who tragically, has no sense of products. He does not understand that small screen makes the phone harder to use for most tasks nowadays. 

Anyway, I think no matter what arguments I use, some people just do not get it. Just like Tim Cook does not get it.

post #39 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

This is utterly bizarre. The blinding force that makes Apple fans not see the obvious. The share price lost well over $200. What other proof you need that iPhone 5 underperformed? Of course, it outsold GS3. If it didn't AAPL would be under $300. It just did not sell enough. If Steve Jobs was alive...

Stop being stupid. There is no direct relationship between stock price and iPhone sales. It's outsold every other iPhone in it's time frame. It's outsold all other high-end smartphones. Apple's profits are through the roof. The only thing Apple has missed are analysts predictions. "It's been 3 years since a major product release! Apple is doomed¡"


PS: Tired of people claiming what Steve Jobs would haev done if he were alive. If you said to someone, "If Steve Jobs were alive he'd **** your mom" that doesn't make it true, and frankly I'd be offended if you wrote that to someone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

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

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

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

Reply
post #40 of 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature View Post

This is utterly bizarre. The blinding force that makes Apple fans not see the obvious. The share price lost well over $200. What other proof you need that iPhone 5 underperformed? Of course, it outsold GS3. If it didn't AAPL would be under $300. It just did not sell enough. If Steve Jobs was alive, I am absolutely convinced that he would sense by early 2012 that a smartphone with a larger screen is easier to use, and iPhone 5 would have 5" stunning screen, be the easiest to use smartphone in the world, sell over 60 million and drive AAPL to over $800. But you have Tim Cook, a brilliant accountant but, who tragically, has no sense of products. He does not understand that small screen makes the phone harder to use for most tasks nowadays. 
Anyway, I think no matter what arguments I use, some people just do not get it. Just like Tim Cook does not get it.

That's the stupidest argument ever. What part of "Record sales of the iPhone" don't you understand. They could not meet demand.

Enough with the "if Steve Jobs was alive" meme. Btw, Cook isn't an accountant.

A 4" phone is big enough for most people as proven by the sales/shipment numbers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple's earnings predicted to shrink 14% in first half of 2013, but grow 15% to close the year