or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple profits rise 26% on sales of 2.6M Macs, 6.8M iPhones
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple profits rise 26% on sales of 2.6M Macs, 6.8M iPhones - Page 2

post #41 of 84
The important #s for Apple to beat are not their own projections but the street's whisper #s. Apple's guidance is usually conservative.

Reading their release is amazing. I'd ask someone to pinch me as it reads like I'm in the late 90s during the .com boom.

Truly an amazing company with world class products. I like that they are issuing non-GAAP numbers, which further illustrate the power of their mobile business.

Personally, I'd prefer they used some of that cash to lower margins. They'd make it up in volume. But what can you say to a company that's firing on all cylinders except keep doing what you're doing.
post #42 of 84
Now: $102.73

Update: $103.21
post #43 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by PXT View Post

Jobs on netbooks: "We have some pretty itneresting ideas if the category evolves"

I thought that was a revealing comment, more revealing than his earlier, "it's a nascent segment..." remark, which he repeated today.

Conclusion: If you want an apple-branded netbook, pray for the segment to succeed.

And what's success? Apple sold what, 2.6 million macs in the quarter? What do you think apple would need to see, 10M netbooks per quarter in sales among the existing vendors? Or...? Does anyone know where to get numbers of netbooks sold? Surely someone's tracking that.

On a different point, though they seemed to hint at it initially, they seem to be more interested in adding features than in lowering prices, particularly in the iPhone and Macs. That opens up speculation. GPS, video chat in iPhones? Push f/w or a multi-function port down to the MBs? Enhance some of that potential GPU-providing-a-boost-to-CPU-tasks, in the MBP? Or....?

Doesn't seem like our AppleTVs will be much prettier in June than they are now. I didn't hear anyone suggesting they were eager to add lipstick to that...uhhh...product.
post #44 of 84
Talk about numbers that don't add up. This charlatan from Morgan Stanley lowballed AAPL's EPS by a mid boggling 26 cents per share! She was off by 25%! How wrong can one person be? She missed the gross margins by 1.8%! She lowballed the revenue by $135 million. Her repeated hair-brain predictions have cost AAPL billions in market cap. She's a disgrace! Morgan Stanley should fire her and AAPL shareholders should sue Morgan Stanley. I hope Kathryn Huberty rots in hell!
post #45 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post

I thought that was a revealing comment, more revealing than his earlier, "it's a nascent segment..." remark, which he repeated today.

Conclusion: If you want an apple-branded netbook, pray for the segment to succeed.

And what's success? Apple sold what, 2.6 million macs in the quarter? What do you think apple would need to see, 10M netbooks per quarter in sales among the existing vendors? Or...? Does anyone know where to get numbers of netbooks sold? Surely someone's tracking that.

If it does succeed, it obviously more likely for Apple to enter that market segment. They do tend to follow then lead in that area, but I doubt it'll be the $300-$500 netbook you see with others. I would probably be about the same screen size, but would it have a $20 Atom CPU or a $300 22mm^2 C2D? Would it be a cheap plastic mold or more of there aluminium milled machines? It sounds like Apple would enter it with a smaller footprint MBA at around MacBook prices in order to get a worthwhile return.

Q: Can you comment about the pricing of the Mac line? And thoughts about netbooks?

A: This particular downturn is not creating a market of cheaper computers. That market has existed. There are parts of that market we choose not to play in. We choose to be in certain segments of the market, and choose not to be in certain segments. Will the downturn drive customers to different cheaper products? I'd be surprised if that happened in large numbers. I think there are a tremendous number of customers that we don't have that would like to and can afford to buy Apple products. We'll see what the ratio of those two are, but we're not tremendously worried. The netbook: not aot of them getting sold, one of our entrants into that category is the iPhone. Browsing, connectivity, etc... the iPhone is a pretty good solution to that. We'll see how the netbook evolves, and we have some pretty interesting ideas if it does evolve.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #46 of 84
I wonder how much add-on profit Apple make from the iPhone platform. From %'s of Apps sold etc.

I'm guessing this is not like iTunes where they only make enough money to cover the costs of the iTunes store, but that they actually get to keep some of that 30%.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #47 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Personally, I'd prefer they used some of that cash to lower margins. They'd make it up in volume. But what can you say to a company that's firing on all cylinders except keep doing what you're doing.

Scenario: You run a lawn-cutting business, and have higher margins than the rest of the kids on the block. You're booked solid because people are happy with your service. They are more than willing to pay your price.

Would you really think about lowering your margins? That goes against business sense.
post #48 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

Talk about numbers that don't add up. This charlatan from Morgan Stanley lowballed AAPL's EPS by a mid boggling 26 cents per share! She was off by 25%! How wrong can one person be? She missed the gross margins by 1.8%! She lowballed the revenue by $135 million. Her repeated hair-brain predictions have cost AAPL billions in market cap. She's a disgrace! Morgan Stanley should fire her and AAPL shareholders should sue Morgan Stanley. I hope Kathryn Huberty rots in hell!

Then you should also yell at Apple's CFO for lowballing EPS off by 30%+.
post #49 of 84
103.70 @ 6:55

WOW. I wonder who sold 29,426 shares at 6:55 !!!!!
post #50 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

up 2% at the beginning of the call.

points of interest:
selling more ipods than any other non-holiday quarter. That's big, everyone has been making noise about iPhone eating into ipod sales.

It is not a point of interest at all because iPod sales have very little to do with iPhone sales. I'm not sure at all why the iPhone can be seen as eating iPod sales as they are more or less in the same family. That would be like saying Shuffle east nano sales and nano eats Touch sales. Nothing could be further from the truth as each device serves different markets. This can be seen by people actually owning two or more of the devices.
Quote:

Biggest non-holiday quarter ever? Nice.

Yeah it certainly is. I'd like to see how "Back to School" did.
Quote:

Stupid as the analyst-system can be, you get dinged when you don't meet their expectations. You have to believe that those expectations are responsible for part of the share price at any point in time.

Well that is part of the ugliness of the wall street system unfortunately sites like Appleinsider give these guys a voice. Frankly the less that gets reported the better. I mean it would be useful if these so called analyst actual dug up some useful info or dirt but frankly it look more like a guessing game. Frankly the worst thing about the current era is that we have so little going on with respect to good journalism. All we get is the constant fear mongering about the world overheating.
Quote:

backtomac: I think you need to provide more info on what you mean about the iphone numbers - otherwise you don't really have much of a point there.

In any event I think Apple has already set themselves up for the Christmas shopping season rather well. The new portables are hot to say the least. The iPod update was OK but really missed on the capacity front. If they come out with a new Mini I could see them having the hottest Christmas in years no matter what happens with the economy. Apple products simply offer good value.

Dave
post #51 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post

Scenario: You run a lawn-cutting business, and have higher margins than the rest of the kids on the block. You're booked solid because people are happy with your service. They are more than willing to pay your price.

Would you really think about lowering your margins? That goes against business sense.

The problem with your analogy isn't that apple is "booked solid". They could sell two or three or five times as many macs as they do today. High margins aren't always the best if they mean sacrificing total sales.
post #52 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

High margins aren't always the best if they mean sacrificing total sales.

And high sales aren't good if you are sacrificing your margins. It's easy to drop a price in an economic downturn, nearly impossible ot successfully bring back up when the economy strengthens. As we've seen, Apple's higher-end, simple boutique-like model has allowed it to brave poor management and economic hazards. Now that it's thriving selling 5x as many crappy $500 machines to make same profit of a single MacBook sale makes as much sense as having to sell 10 copies of OS X to Dell to make the same profit as one MacBook sale.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #53 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The iPod update was OK but really missed on the capacity front.

How so? The word is they doubled the IPod Nano capacity when they didn't want to because of the Zune's doubling. The Shuffle doesn't need a capacity bump, and the iPod Touch's can't do 64GB without costing way too much. Remember, that isn't a 2.5" SSD in the device, but 2x32GB SDHC-sized Flash chips.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How so? The word is they doubled the IPod Nano capacity when they didn't want to because of the Zune's doubling. The Shuffle doesn't need a capacity bump, and the iPod Touch's can't do 64GB without costing way too much. Remember, that isn't a 2.5" SSD in the device, but 2x32GB SDHC-sized Flash chips.

I'm maybe under the wrong impression here but they did not double the Touches capacity and that is what I was referring to. My Fault for not being specific about the new Touch. In any event isn't the new Touch limited to one Flash device. That is all I saw in the on line photos.

In any event the lack of a 64GB Touch puts a big hole in Apples iPod line up in my estimation. I really want this hole filled. But that is really the only negative with respect to the new Touches as otherwise they are a very nice update.

Dave
post #55 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In any event isn't the new Touch limited to one Flash device. That is all I saw in the on line photos.

If it is, then it makes the situation even more expensive.

Quote:
In any event the lack of a 64GB Touch puts a big hole in Apples iPod line up in my estimation. I really want this hole filled. But that is really the only negative with respect to the new Touches as otherwise they are a very nice update.

They only added the iPod Touch a year ago with 8GB and 16Gb capacities. Then in Jan/Feb, only about 6 months later, doubled the iPhone to 16GB and the Touch to 32GB. Doubling 2x a year just isn't possible with the technology, much less making the price viable.

I wonder what they are going to do since doubling the iPhone to 32GB would seem like a good move, even if the Touch can't go to 64GB right away, but when will the next doubling of the happen? At the rate of 2x year then the Touch will be over 1TB in 2 years. or 4 years if you double it once a year.

edit: The first one had 2 Toshiba chips, the new one has a single Micron chip.

1st-Gen iPod Touch
2nd-Gen iPod Touch
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #56 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Where did you find that? The AI News says: AAPLt 91.49 ( -6.95 ) at this time.

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL

As of now:
After Hours: 103.70 +12.21 (13.35%) - Oct 21, 7:55PM EDT
post #57 of 84
"It is not a point of interest at all because iPod sales have very little to do with iPhone sales. I'm not sure at all why the iPhone can be seen as eating iPod sales as they are more or less in the same family. That would be like saying Shuffle east nano sales and nano eats Touch sales. Nothing could be further from the truth as each device serves different markets. This can be seen by people actually owning two or more of the devices."

Actually, for me, I never plan to buy another non-shuffle and I had an iPod classic before hand so yes, iPhone sales do in fact hurt iPod sales. It should be blatantly obvious by the fact that SJ himself said the touch is little more than an iPhone sans the phone part.

My sister is doing the same thing - she's holding off on a touch because she's going to get an iPhone sometime soon but in the mean time rather than buy another nano she's going to buy a shuffle. No idea in the world why you think iPhone sales don't hurt iPod sales - well - unless of course you think the iPhone is an iPod itself.
post #58 of 84
Price x Quantity = Total Revenue. No one knows the price that maximizes Total Revenue. You won't see Apple playing around with various prices and waiting around to see where the volume comes in at. That would be incredibly inefficient and destructive in their market. What they do is come up with their best guess and run with it.

My guess is the price point that would maximize total revenue is a bit lower than the prices they are at today. For those that knee-jerk the point that Apple doesn't want to be in a market selling $500 junk, I agree. But I still think the current prices are higher than need be.

I'm also not saying they are misjudging it by a lot. If I were the CEO, there would be small modifications across the product line.

For a great example of how to do it wrong, look no further than Adobe. Photoshop prices are abusive and discourage sane customers from purchasing.
post #59 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Actually, for me, I never plan to buy another non-shuffle and I had an iPod classic before hand so yes, iPhone sales do in fact hurt iPod sales. It should be blatantly obvious by the fact that SJ himself said the touch is little more than an iPhone sans the phone part.

My sister is doing the same thing - she's holding off on a touch because she's going to get an iPhone sometime soon but in the mean time rather than buy another nano she's going to buy a shuffle. No idea in the world why you think iPhone sales don't hurt iPod sales - well - unless of course you think the iPhone is an iPod itself.

Me too. I no longer need an iPod Nano, because the iPod shuffle is great for the gym/jogging, and the iPhone handles all my other iPod needs. If not for the iPhone I would have probably gotten iPod Touch as i do like the videos and Safari aspect of it. I think it's obvious that the iPhone has cannibalized a good percentage of the iPod sales.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #60 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Price x Quantity = Total Revenue. No one knows the price that maximizes Total Revenue. You won't see Apple playing around with various prices and waiting around to see where the volume comes in at. That would be incredibly inefficient and destructive in their market. What they do is come up with their best guess and run with it.

My guess is the price point that would maximize total revenue is a bit lower than the prices they are at today. For those that knee-jerk the point that Apple doesn't want to be in a market selling $500 junk, I agree. But I still think the current prices are higher than need be.

I'm also not saying they are misjudging it by a lot. If I were the CEO, there would be small modifications across the product line.

For a great example of how to do it wrong, look no further than Adobe. Photoshop prices are abusive and discourage sane customers from purchasing.

Isn't this just another application/theory similar to reaganomics? At what point does lowering taxes spur so much growth that the revenue actually increases. Hmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reganomics

It did work but the only question is could it have done better?
post #61 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

If it is, then it makes the situation even more expensive.

Well if it indeed a single flash device then it shows that it wouldn't have cost to much to double capacity on a two flash device. In any event this thread has me wondering just what the facts are with respect to the new Touch. Need to find the definitive answer. I know at this time Micron didn't have any 32GB chips advertised on their web site, but that doesn't mean they don't have something running off the lines right now for Apple.
Quote:


They only added the iPod Touch a year ago with 8GB and 16Gb capacities. Then in Jan/Feb, only about 6 months later, doubled the iPhone to 16GB and the Touch to 32GB. Doubling 2x a year just isn't possible with the technology, much less making the price viable.

I guess it depends. If Touch does have a single 32GB flash device in it, then obviously the cost isn't so bad that a model with two flash devices wouldn't have been viable. In any event it was a bit of a shock that Apple didn't more aggressively address the storage issue on Touch, even if that meant a device with three flash modules.
Quote:

I wonder what they are going to do since doubling the iPhone to 32GB would seem like a good move, even if the Touch can't go to 64GB right away, but when will the next doubling of the happen? At the rate of 2x year then the Touch will be over 1TB in 2 years. or 4 years if you double it once a year.

I think the flash industry doubles every 18 months or so. Doesn't really matter as users have demands. Personally I liked to see Touch double every year no matter what Apple has to do to accomplish that. Of course I'd like to see a return of the Firewire interface on iPods too, but we all know that won't happen. The goal here is simple, off load all media storage from my Laptop, which I can't do on my iPhone nor on a Touch. Actually I'd go a step farther and have a two devices so one functionally becomes a backup for the other. Half a terabyte sounds about right at the moment.

Of course I'm not sure if USB can really handle this sort of usage well. The thing is iTunes is becoming more attractive by the minute. I especially like the idea of movie/TV downloads. If you decide to keep a series that can be close to two GB at a time. Now I know Apple gots this idea that all you need to do is to store iPod specific copies on your Touch/iPhone. Frankly I think that is a big mistake and would like iPod-'whateve'r to become my media storage device for all media be it optimized for iPod or not.
Quote:

edit: The first one had 2 Toshiba chips, the new one has a single Micron chip.
1st-Gen iPod Touch
2nd-Gen iPod Touch

Yeah that sort of is the point. The 32 GB iPod sort of puts a top end limit on the price of that 32GB flash chip. Considering the price of a 32GB Touch, a 64 GB model is not impossible. Well except for the possibility of constrained production. I suspect that this also means they could update 3G at any time to 32GB.

It appears to be another case of Apple selecting form over function. At least if storage is a significant function for you. If not for the storage issue the updated Touch would be awesome, but now it is just outstanding.

Dave
post #62 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think the flash industry doubles every 18 months or so. Doesn't really matter as users have demands.

Or what Apple demands. And that is the bleeding edge, where price is not good for consumer.

Quote:
Personally I liked to see Touch double every year no matter what Apple has to do to accomplish that.

That just isn't rationale to expect a doubling every year, of the 6 months you mentioned earlier with expecting a 64GB Touch back in September. If you expect a 64GB Touch in 2009, then 128GB in 2010, 256GB in 2011, 512GB in 2012, 1TB in 2013, 2TB in 2014, 4TB in 2015, 8TB in 2016, 16TB in 2017, 32TB in 2018.

Quote:
Yeah that sort of is the point. The 32 GB iPod sort of puts a top end limit on the price of that 32GB flash chip. Considering the price of a 32GB Touch, a 64 GB model is not impossible.

I can't find a single 64GB chip on the market, so how is that possible. Apple would have to use two chips which means going to a thicker iPod Touch. Not just for the additional ship, but for the controller and a larger battery would be needed to maintain the same battery performance as you now have two chips sucking power.

Quote:
It appears to be another case of Apple selecting form over function. At least if storage is a significant function for you. If not for the storage issue the updated Touch would be awesome, but now it is just outstanding.

But you're not alone. Many people expect Apple to somehow turn water into wine. Each revision can't see a doubling because it's 3-4x faster than the chips are available. Then there is production ramp up to consider, costs, and other technical aspects. It just doesn't make sense.

As for form over function, the functionality has increased with the new Touch, but the move to single chip is form over upgradability , because now they can't use 32GB+16GB chips in January for concatenated a 48GB version, which the 64GB version arriving in September of that year, and so on. They could do that every 9 months for so for focused and predictable progression in capacity.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #63 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Actually, for me, I never plan to buy another non-shuffle and I had an iPod classic before hand so yes, iPhone sales do in fact hurt iPod sales. It should be blatantly obvious by the fact that SJ himself said the touch is little more than an iPhone sans the phone part.

I actually don't believe you here because what you need in the future is unknown at this point. But lets say you do buy a shuffle, you don't call that eating into Nano sales, Touch sales or classic sales do you? It just isn't a valid argument as each device has a specific market segment it plays to (pun intended).

As to Touch its very existence highlights that there is a market for such a device outside of the cell industry. The fact is it is a very large market. Touch doesn't eat into iPhone sales because its whole reason for its existence is to pick up sales from people that don't want a iPhone. It provides the Touch experience in a device devoid of iPhone problems.
Quote:

My sister is doing the same thing - she's holding off on a touch because she's going to get an iPhone sometime soon but in the mean time rather than buy another nano she's going to buy a shuffle.

Sounds like your sister is more interested in copying you than anything else. Which is her right to do, but what you have to understand is that it is pretty clear that not everybody in the market place sees things the way you do. In fact I'm willing to say very few do. As to the shuffle people either hate it or love it depending on how they deal with the interface.
Quote:
No idea in the world why you think iPhone sales don't hurt iPod sales - well - unless of course you think the iPhone is an iPod itself.

That is simple look at the sales numbers. Best non holiday period ever! One can dig in the barrel of improvised thoughts all day but it is more productive to dig in the barrel of reported facts. iPod sales are shockingly hot and their really isn't much interaction between the "pods" and the "iPhone". Part of that due to the expensive iPhone contract.

Now Apple has as much said that they need to protect the lower end of the iPhone market. So I fully expect to see a lower cost iPhone come out soon. Possibly one aimed at or modelled after the nano. Depending on the contract or lack of, that unit might have significant impact on "pod" sales. As it is now one can't say that based on sales numbers.

Apples toughest problem is maintaining this forward movement through tough times. This brings us back tot he issue of perceived value. If anything the iPhone could drive more sales of things like the Touch based devices instead of "eating" sales.

Dave
post #64 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I actually don't believe you here because what you need in the future is unknown at this point. But lets say you do buy a shuffle, you don't call that eating into Nano sales, Touch sales or classic sales do you? It just isn't a valid argument as each device has a specific market segment it plays to (pun intended).

They do have their own market segment, but that doesn't mean that segments don't cross each other. Bigmc6000, I and others all seem to be doing the same thing. Dropping our iPod Classics and iPod Nanos for a cheap Shuffle and iPhone. This is not unusual, and quite good that Apple is cannibalizing iPod sales with another product of theirs.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #65 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Isn't this just another application/theory similar to reaganomics? At what point does lowering taxes spur so much growth that the revenue actually increases. Hmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reganomics

It did work but the only question is could it have done better?

Yeah it did work along with a lot of positive thinking. The problem is we have not elected anybody since that can assemble the economic team the quality of Reagans. Even worst what we have to choose from now (this election) is appalling.

It isn't so much the tax platform that each candidate has but rather the total lack of vision and a healthy respect for others. So when you are sitting in that booth how do you make your decision?

Personally I'm going to vote for Palin and the guy she is running with. If I can't count on either candidate might as well put a VP in office that young men can "dream" about. Well that and she is a member of the NRA which never hurts.

Dave
post #66 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Personally I'm going to vote for Palin and the guy she is running with. If I can't count on either candidate might as well put a VP in office that young men can "dream" about. Well that and she is a member of the NRA which never hurts.

You're basing your vote on her looks and her membership to the NRA?!?!?!?! That isn't exactly what I'd call an informed, pragmatic decision. No wonder we can never see eye-to-eye on posts.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #67 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Or what Apple demands. And that is the bleeding edge, where price is not good for consumer.

Yes but isn't it obvious that the new Touch is bleeding edge? I mean it is possible that Apple is using a different PC board in the 32 GB device but I don't think it is likely.
Quote:

That just isn't rationale to expect a doubling every year, of the 6 months you mentioned earlier with expecting a 64GB Touch back in September. If you expect a 64GB Touch in 2009, then 128GB in 2010, 256GB in 2011, 512GB in 2012, 1TB in 2013, 2TB in 2014, 4TB in 2015, 8TB in 2016, 16TB in 2017, 32TB in 2018.

Well the 64 GB device should have come in September. That would move the 256GB device up to 2010 which is just barely good enough. We really need storage parity with Classic in a flash iPod sometime in 2009. I really don't care how they get there but frankly a bigger Touch is in order. Note that doesn't have to be a hugely bigger Touch either, depending on the technology used to implement the device.
Quote:


I can't find a single 64GB chip on the market, so how is that possible. Apple would have to use two chips which means going to a thicker iPod Touch. Not just for the additional ship, but for the controller and a larger battery would be needed to maintain the same battery performance as you now have two chips sucking power.

Exactly which is why I wonder why Apple dropped the two flash capability in Touch. Frankly if it was me I would have found a way to add another flash position. It really is no big deal as classic came in different thickness's over the years to accommodate more storage. As to batteries they come in all sorts of sizes I don't see this as an issue at all.
Quote:


But you're not alone. Many people expect Apple to somehow turn water into wine. Each revision can't see a doubling because it's 3-4x faster than the chips are available. Then there is production ramp up to consider, costs, and other technical aspects. It just doesn't make sense.

Clearly there are chips to do that today as it appears to be a design decision on Apples part and nothing more that left us without a 64 GB Touch. It is not 3 to 4 times faster either, but rather about 1.5. That issue can be dealt with by using more flash devices not by cutting the number in half. Yeah these are aggressive numbers to look at but they are not totally unworkable.

Quote:

As for form over function, the functionality has increased with the new Touch, but the move to single chip is form over upgradability , because now they can't use 32GB+16GB chips in January for concatenated a 48GB version, which the 64GB version arriving in September of that year, and so on. They could do that every 9 months for so for focused and predictable progression in capacity.

It is not upgradablability as the device aren't, unless you buy a totally new one. But I agree that the current design is troublesome in the sense that it might be a very long time before we see a capacity increase. It looks like Apple only other recourse beside waiting for process improvements is to go to stacked die technology which is expensive. If that is what is required then I say doit. At least offer people the option of buying the capacity they need.. Every body realize that it will be cheaper in 6 months so no big deal. Looking at Touch now it could be a year before we see a capacity increase.

What is obvious though is that the market certainly loves the iPods! With the new ones being all around better deals except for a Flash increase on Touch it will be very interesting to see what holiday sales are like. I suspect lots of smiles.

dave
post #68 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well the 64 GB device should have come in September.

Your conviction that Apple should be doubling Flash capacities about every 6 months makes absolutely no sense. You know that Flash isn't updated that often but you sell think that 16GB in Sept then 32GB in February means that 64GB should have arrived in Sept, and I'm sure you would than have expected 128GB in January 2009, despite no 64 or 128GB chips being available. There is just no logic to these timeframes.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The revenue was below estimates but EPS beat estimates.

Apple have deferred earnings from the sales of the 1st iPhones that I suspect they are now booking.

I don't know this for a fact but am suggesting this to be the case.

No, Apple has been recognizing revenue from every iPhone sold, every quarter since it has been sold. After 8 quarters, some phones will STOP contributing revenue, but every phone sold thus far contributes 1/8th of it's total sale price every quarter until then.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

up 6.36 points at 5:25 Wall Street time...

Wonder what the idiot conspiracy theorists will say when Apple stock goes up after missing revenue and issuing a low profit forecast.
post #71 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You're basing your vote on her looks and her membership to the NRA?!?!?!?! That isn't exactly what I'd call an informed, pragmatic decision. No wonder we can never see eye-to-eye on posts.

The problem is making an informed pragmatic decision is almost hopeless at this point. If you look at Obama he is a extreme radical compared to the majority of the Democratic Party and his election would leave me with the feeling that the next Hitler has taken office. Something I really don't want to see. His policies on health care, welfare and personal responsibility are really appalling.

McCain has his own issues where age is one. Anger also seems to be an issue with McCain. I personally don't think he could assemble a good team to lead the country, because contrary to popular belief the president can't do it alone. Rather it is the ability to assemble the right team and lead them to a common goal that we need in a president.

So yeah if voting for either of the above is out of the question than it is either none of the above or the pretty girl. At least with the pretty girl there is a reasonable potential she would take over in less than 4 years. Yeah she is a little young and inexperienced but you would want someone like Biden in a position of taking over running the country. He is to much of an insider to change anything.

Oh about change, sure a little is needed but we don't need to ruin everything that is good about the country in the process. This is a big worry with Obama.

No body gives me a warm fuzzy feeling this year.

Dave
post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnqh View Post

I think the iPhone number beats the street's expectations, and of course, Apple makes way more money from each iPhone than from each Mac (and iPod), that's why the margin is higher than expected.

Sure they do...
post #73 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Personally, I'd prefer they used some of that cash to lower margins. They'd make it up in volume. But what can you say to a company that's firing on all cylinders except keep doing what you're doing.

Lowering margins doesn't "cost" cash
post #74 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Isn't this just another application/theory similar to reaganomics? At what point does lowering taxes spur so much growth that the revenue actually increases. Hmm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reganomics

It did work but the only question is could it have done better?

Heh, funny you would say that. The answer is no, it's not another application of Reganomics. It's simple economics. Which is also to say, Reganomics is just a basic application of standard economic theory
post #75 of 84
Not bad for 5 quarters of sales of a relatively expensive handset as a single model device in two capacities, locked to most carriers and lacking features like MMS, video recording and copy/paste.

It looks like calender Q4 will mostly likely overtake Samsung, with Nokia still having double the phone revenue as Apple's iPhone. At what point does it make sense for Apple to introduce a simpler iPhone Nano for those that don't want 3rd-party apps or internet, or does it not make sense at all?

I worry about RiM. they have a great product, but their real money maker—the server-side HW and licensing fees—will probably have to be lowered drastically to stay competitive as companies will most likely look for a way to cut costs, which mean moving to the iPhone and WinCE devices for the "good enough" option for getting Push directly from Exchange via ActiveSync. I hope RiM's access to China goes well.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #76 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Lowering margins doesn't "cost" cash

Absolutely. It's a layman's way to say they should buy marketshare. Thank you for the correction though. I shouldn't participate in the sloppy language of 'joe the plumber' accounting.
post #77 of 84
Really I'm starting to have problems with how you are missing this. Apple went form a device that used two flash chips to one flash chip but is still shipping a 32 Gb Touch. So that clearly means that Apple could have shipped a device with two 32GB flash chips if it wanted to. That in September!

I don't know how else to explain it. The only thing that would invalidate this is if the 32 GB Touch used a mother board with two flash chip positions. That is possible but I really haven't seen a tear down of a 32 GB Touch. Its not like I'm going to volunteer to go out and buy a 32 GB iPod and tear it apart so I just have to assume right now that the same PC board is being used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Your conviction that Apple should be doubling Flash capacities about every 6 months makes absolutely no sense. You know that Flash isn't updated that often but you sell think that 16GB in Sept then 32GB in February means that 64GB should have arrived in Sept,

Not at all. My position that a 64 GB device is possible is based on the assumption that the 32 GB Touch is using a single chip. Everythign points in that direction. Plus through out the Summer of 2008 more than a couple of companies announced new 32GB flash chips going into production. So the technology was or is coming online. The only reason we don't have a 64 GB Touch right now is that it was redesigned to exclude one chip position.

I don't know but this is pretty clear to me.

I think part of the problem here is that you see a product that hasn't been on the market long getting more updates than the technology growth would allow. But you can't really look at Touch as a technology leader, Flash wise, when it first came out. When it first hit the market it was using cheap commonly available flash chips. So the first update was easy.
Quote:

and I'm sure you would than have expected 128GB in January 2009, despite no 64 or 128GB chips being available. There is just no logic to these timeframes.

Sure there is, simply build a Touch with more flash chips! Right now we are in an era of 32 GB flash apparently based on the large Touch. 64GB is a no brainer and simply follows what was done on the old Touch (add a second chip). I do not expect 64 GB flash chips until early 2010 so that means to hit 128 GB in 2009 requires 4 32GB flash chips. That is a lot harder in the current Touch form factor so Apple produces a fat Touch just like they had a fat Classic. With 64 GB chips in late spring of 2010 Apple can rev each of the Touch devices again. With Flash on a constant downward price slide, Apple should be able to keep the price manageable.

If nothing else look at the prices on the really cheap SSD. Not the high performance ones but rather the slower units, if you don't want performance you can get a significant amount of storage at fairly reasonable prices. Refractored into an iPod it is clear that Apple could do better storage wise. Look here: http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/subs...FQ60Hgod8VxfKw and you will find 128GB drives for $369. If you look here: http://www.pricewatch.com/hard_remov...s/ssd_64gb.htm you will find 64 GB drives for as little as $173. Now you may argue that SSD are nothing like the iPod but I'd have to say they are very similar. Certainly there is a bit extra in the Touch but the Touch can make up some of that in that it doesn't need the level of performance in these devices. The point is the only reason we don't have a 64 GB Touch right now is that Apple for some reason didn't want us to have one.

What that reason is is open to question, but I'm actually hoping they have newer device ready to come on line soon. You can try to convince me otherwise but the evidence is clear.


Dave
post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Not bad for 5 quarters of sales of a relatively expensive handset as a single model device in two capacities, locked to most carriers and lacking features like MMS, video recording and copy/paste.

MMS is simply a tool for people that haven't adapted to the modern world. Beyond that the common usage seems to be with the up skirt crowd. MMS users seem to represent the opposite spectrum of the RIM user. Well most of the time.
Quote:

It looks like calender Q4 will mostly likely overtake Samsung, with Nokia still having double the phone revenue as Apple's iPhone. At what point does it make sense for Apple to introduce a simpler iPhone Nano for those that don't want 3rd-party apps or internet, or does it not make sense at all?

Didn't Jobs more or less say today that they will address the lower end. There is no way they can survive in the cell industry as a one phone company. Hopefully they will get rid of the pathetic locking to carriers.
Quote:

I worry about RiM. they have a great product, but their real money makerthe server-side HW and licensing feeswill probably have to be lowered drastically to stay competitive as companies will most likely look for a way to cut costs, which mean moving to the iPhone and WinCE devices for the "good enough" option for getting Push directly from Exchange via ActiveSync. I hope RiM's access to China goes well.

Nice image

Now you may find this funny but I always worried about the people that carried RIM devices. Really! If RIM goes under a lot of people will have to find other ways to express their masculinity or perceived status in the social pecking order. RIM seemed to cater to the "Look at me I'm important" crowd.

Dave
post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Apple went form a device that used two flash chips to one flash chip but is still shipping a 32 Gb Touch. So that clearly means that Apple could have shipped a device with two 32GB flash chips if it wanted to.

If they went from a device with TWO chips to a device with ONE chip, how exactly do you think that they can add a non-existent 64GB chip in a device that you know only has room for ONE chip. It's technologically impossible until the 64GB chips arrive. This isn't conjecture, this is simple physics.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by jchahuteur View Post

103.70 @ 6:55

WOW. I wonder who sold 29,426 shares at 6:55 !!!!!

Could be someone who bought 29,426 shares earlier in the day for $91.70, and figured that a profit of $353,112 (pre-tax) wasn't too shabby for a couple of three hours of work?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple profits rise 26% on sales of 2.6M Macs, 6.8M iPhones