So does this mean if the rule passes Apple will no longer charge for iPod Touch updates? and misc other firmware updates they have 'had to' charge for in the past due to the accounting?
Doubt it, they will just need to think of another excuse. There's plenty of examples of companies giving things away for free. In fact Apple gives software away for free that comes on a Mac and as it only runs on a Mac you could deduce its a comparative upgrade. Not to mention there have been software upgrades for normal iPODs that you didn't pay for.
That is exactly what I was trying to say... it's "like" they overlook it, because the actual meaning does not seem to be fully understood: that the figures are the tip of the iceberg -- they represent the same amount of money ALREADY EARNED for a following seven quarters.
So, yes, obviously, something is not being understood, as I said. They might as well be overlooking it, because they are overlooking something, the implications, or whatever. One implication being that Apple has to sell very few phones to maintain current iPhone income levels (for next two years), and they are soon selling into China to boot.
I don't understand what you think is being overlooked, and by whom. Perhaps when Apple first started reporting their income both ways, it caused some confusion amongst those who didn't understand it -- which should not include financial analysts, or investors who pay attention. The other factor to consider is the benefit of reporting income this way. It can smooth over the bumps and valleys in revenue that are caused by product refreshes and seasonal effects. So it's hardly all bad.
Personally, I think this is a teapot storm. If AAPL is being undervalued by investors, it's not because of the way they report income, it's because of concerns over the ability to grow profits in the future at the recent-past rates. In the end, that's what stock values are all about anyway.
That is exactly what I was trying to say... it's "like" they overlook it, because the actual meaning does not seem to be fully understood: that the figures are the tip of the iceberg -- they represent the same amount of money ALREADY EARNED for a following seven quarters.
So, yes, obviously, something is not being understood, as I said. They might as well be overlooking it, because they are overlooking something, the implications, or whatever. One implication being that Apple has to sell very few phones to maintain current iPhone income levels (for next two years), and they are soon selling into China to boot.
Yes, and if Apple stops selling iPhones, the stock will tank, because the market is not so stupid to misunderstand the difference between earnings on the income statement and cash coming in.
If all the "seasoned" investors are really getting some real analysis behind closed doors despite the public statements of analysts which seem to be largely negative on, yes, largely "overlooked" implications of the facts, then great. Instead seems like a lot of people are selling on wild rumors about Steve's health and other crap, manipulating the price, and contributing to the price fall from 200 to 80 last year.
Your perception of this negative sentiment about Apple is dead wrong. Apple is almost uniformly rated as a buy or a strong buy. Oh and when Apple was going from 200 to 80, I'm trying to remember, wasn't there something else going on in the market at that time too?
Your feelings about Apple are typical of an investor who really doesn't know what he's doing. Take a tip, instead of trying to fight the truth. The market is not out to get you. Analysts cannot affect a stock outside the very short term. The market already knows everything you know. All these things are true, and once you accept them, you'll finally have a chance to understand the market. Until then, you will always think there is a conspiracy out to get you. Don't be that guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen
But those Apple fans who held, and who picked up more at 80 are in good shape. The stock is back up, and some analysts are finally coming around to estimates over 300 and recognizing that Apple is in good shape going forward. Wish I had more money to be that kind of investor. Being an Apple fan doesn't make one a fantasist, just someone who feels there is a little more integrity in Apple and what Apple says than what pundits, analysts and other companies say.
Being an Apple fan doesn't make you a fanatic, but you are a fanatic about the stock. Tell you what - since you are convinced that it's worth $300 and not $150, why don't you prove it. Show me some numbers that justify that value of the stock.
Personally, I think this is a teapot storm. If AAPL is being undervalued by investors, it's not because of the way they report income, it's because of concerns over the ability to grow profits in the future at the recent-past rates. In the end, that's what stock values are all about anyway.
Comments
So does this mean if the rule passes Apple will no longer charge for iPod Touch updates? and misc other firmware updates they have 'had to' charge for in the past due to the accounting?
Doubt it, they will just need to think of another excuse. There's plenty of examples of companies giving things away for free. In fact Apple gives software away for free that comes on a Mac and as it only runs on a Mac you could deduce its a comparative upgrade. Not to mention there have been software upgrades for normal iPODs that you didn't pay for.
That is exactly what I was trying to say... it's "like" they overlook it, because the actual meaning does not seem to be fully understood: that the figures are the tip of the iceberg -- they represent the same amount of money ALREADY EARNED for a following seven quarters.
So, yes, obviously, something is not being understood, as I said. They might as well be overlooking it, because they are overlooking something, the implications, or whatever. One implication being that Apple has to sell very few phones to maintain current iPhone income levels (for next two years), and they are soon selling into China to boot.
I don't understand what you think is being overlooked, and by whom. Perhaps when Apple first started reporting their income both ways, it caused some confusion amongst those who didn't understand it -- which should not include financial analysts, or investors who pay attention. The other factor to consider is the benefit of reporting income this way. It can smooth over the bumps and valleys in revenue that are caused by product refreshes and seasonal effects. So it's hardly all bad.
Personally, I think this is a teapot storm. If AAPL is being undervalued by investors, it's not because of the way they report income, it's because of concerns over the ability to grow profits in the future at the recent-past rates. In the end, that's what stock values are all about anyway.
That is exactly what I was trying to say... it's "like" they overlook it, because the actual meaning does not seem to be fully understood: that the figures are the tip of the iceberg -- they represent the same amount of money ALREADY EARNED for a following seven quarters.
So, yes, obviously, something is not being understood, as I said. They might as well be overlooking it, because they are overlooking something, the implications, or whatever. One implication being that Apple has to sell very few phones to maintain current iPhone income levels (for next two years), and they are soon selling into China to boot.
Yes, and if Apple stops selling iPhones, the stock will tank, because the market is not so stupid to misunderstand the difference between earnings on the income statement and cash coming in.
If all the "seasoned" investors are really getting some real analysis behind closed doors despite the public statements of analysts which seem to be largely negative on, yes, largely "overlooked" implications of the facts, then great. Instead seems like a lot of people are selling on wild rumors about Steve's health and other crap, manipulating the price, and contributing to the price fall from 200 to 80 last year.
Your perception of this negative sentiment about Apple is dead wrong. Apple is almost uniformly rated as a buy or a strong buy. Oh and when Apple was going from 200 to 80, I'm trying to remember, wasn't there something else going on in the market at that time too?
Your feelings about Apple are typical of an investor who really doesn't know what he's doing. Take a tip, instead of trying to fight the truth. The market is not out to get you. Analysts cannot affect a stock outside the very short term. The market already knows everything you know. All these things are true, and once you accept them, you'll finally have a chance to understand the market. Until then, you will always think there is a conspiracy out to get you. Don't be that guy.
But those Apple fans who held, and who picked up more at 80 are in good shape. The stock is back up, and some analysts are finally coming around to estimates over 300 and recognizing that Apple is in good shape going forward. Wish I had more money to be that kind of investor. Being an Apple fan doesn't make one a fantasist, just someone who feels there is a little more integrity in Apple and what Apple says than what pundits, analysts and other companies say.
Being an Apple fan doesn't make you a fanatic, but you are a fanatic about the stock. Tell you what - since you are convinced that it's worth $300 and not $150, why don't you prove it. Show me some numbers that justify that value of the stock.
Personally, I think this is a teapot storm. If AAPL is being undervalued by investors, it's not because of the way they report income, it's because of concerns over the ability to grow profits in the future at the recent-past rates. In the end, that's what stock values are all about anyway.
Well stated.