I'm honestly baffled how you still don't get it. They're comparing mobile phone profit to mobile phone profit (and nothing else!). I don't see why that's a problem.
He may have, initially, misunderstood the article, but it's content has been explained numerous times. Now he is simply ignoring the basic facts and trolling his own childish interpretation.
He may have, initially, misunderstood the article, but it's content has been explained numerous times. Now he is simply ignoring the basic facts and trolling his own childish interpretation.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. And when he realized it, instead of "Oops, sorry I mis-read that." He goes on for pages fully aware he's still stating the (obvious) misinterpretation.
He may have, initially, misunderstood the article, but it's content has been explained numerous times. Now he is simply ignoring the basic facts and trolling his own childish interpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JupiterOne
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. And when he realized it, instead of "Oops, sorry I mis-read that." He goes on for pages fully aware he's still stating the (obvious) misinterpretation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Could you please, please stop being so incredibly dense and derailing threads. I beseech you.
Indeed, it is actually even higher than that, because Apple defers revenue on iPhones.
The numbers in this article are estimates for the iPhone only.
OK< OK I GET IT!!
it's not my fault AI omitted the MOST important aspect of the article:
per the link:
Quote:
Apple does not unveil profits per business line, but Strategy Analytics estimated Apple's operating profit for its iPhone handset unit stood at $1.6 billion in the third quarter, compared with Nokia's $1.1 billion
per AI:
Quote:
Reuters reports that although Apple does not disclose profits by line,operating profit was estimated at nearly $1.6 billion in the third quarter of this year, compared to $1.1 billion in profit by Nokia for the same period of time.
So you have no argument, and you have dropped down to personal insults. Sad, sad, sad...
Also, none of those links were from Apple...
"Have no argument"? Good lord, dude.
"None of those links from Apple" is pretty weak, unless you want to argue that Macworld deliberately or inadvertently misreported during a live blog on a conference call. Surely that's not going to be the peg on which you hang your disputatious hat?
Average selling price, number of units sold, figures line up. There really isn't any contention, is there?
"None of those links from Apple" is pretty weak, unless you want to argue that Macworld deliberately or inadvertently misreported during a live blog on a conference call. Surely that's not going to be the peg on which you hang your disputatious hat?
Average selling price, number of units sold, figures line up. There really isn't any contention, is there?
No, the concept is correct, if a little bit simplistic. But a valid link would be handy, especially since others have been misquoted before.
Comments
That's because that IS their total profit. It's plainly written in the article!
Could you please, please stop being so incredibly dense and derailing threads. I beseech you.
Apple's total operating profit for 2009 is $7.685B (I insist that you take a look at p. 56 of their most recent 10-K; you will learn something: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1).
Indeed, it is actually even higher than that, because Apple defers revenue on iPhones.
The numbers in this article are estimates for the iPhone only.
I'm honestly baffled how you still don't get it. They're comparing mobile phone profit to mobile phone profit (and nothing else!). I don't see why that's a problem.
He may have, initially, misunderstood the article, but it's content has been explained numerous times. Now he is simply ignoring the basic facts and trolling his own childish interpretation.
He may have, initially, misunderstood the article, but it's content has been explained numerous times. Now he is simply ignoring the basic facts and trolling his own childish interpretation.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. And when he realized it, instead of "Oops, sorry I mis-read that." He goes on for pages fully aware he's still stating the (obvious) misinterpretation.
He may have, initially, misunderstood the article, but it's content has been explained numerous times. Now he is simply ignoring the basic facts and trolling his own childish interpretation.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. And when he realized it, instead of "Oops, sorry I mis-read that." He goes on for pages fully aware he's still stating the (obvious) misinterpretation.
Could you please, please stop being so incredibly dense and derailing threads. I beseech you.
Apple's total operating profit for 2009 is $7.685B (I insist that you take a look at p. 56 of their most recent 10-K; you will learn something: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1).
Indeed, it is actually even higher than that, because Apple defers revenue on iPhones.
The numbers in this article are estimates for the iPhone only.
OK< OK I GET IT!!
it's not my fault AI omitted the MOST important aspect of the article:
per the link:
Apple does not unveil profits per business line, but Strategy Analytics estimated Apple's operating profit for its iPhone handset unit stood at $1.6 billion in the third quarter, compared with Nokia's $1.1 billion
per AI:
Reuters reports that although Apple does not disclose profits by line, operating profit was estimated at nearly $1.6 billion in the third quarter of this year, compared to $1.1 billion in profit by Nokia for the same period of time.
NO apologies necessary.
Jeesh- everything is explainable.
.... blah blah blah ....
So you have no argument, and you have dropped down to personal insults. Sad, sad, sad...
Also, none of those links were from Apple...
So you have no argument, and you have dropped down to personal insults. Sad, sad, sad...
Also, none of those links were from Apple...
"Have no argument"? Good lord, dude.
"None of those links from Apple" is pretty weak, unless you want to argue that Macworld deliberately or inadvertently misreported during a live blog on a conference call. Surely that's not going to be the peg on which you hang your disputatious hat?
Average selling price, number of units sold, figures line up. There really isn't any contention, is there?
"Have no argument"? Good lord, dude.
"None of those links from Apple" is pretty weak, unless you want to argue that Macworld deliberately or inadvertently misreported during a live blog on a conference call. Surely that's not going to be the peg on which you hang your disputatious hat?
Average selling price, number of units sold, figures line up. There really isn't any contention, is there?
No, the concept is correct, if a little bit simplistic. But a valid link would be handy, especially since others have been misquoted before.
As opposed to being pompous?
PUh-leeze no one laughs more at themselves than moi.
Yeah, exactly.
So you have no argument, and you have dropped down to personal insults. Sad, sad, sad...
Also, none of those links were from Apple...
Are you some kind of an idiot? Notice it is a question.
Unfortunately, Apple has removed the Quicktime webcast. However, you can read the full transcript at http://seekingalpha.com/article/1674...script?page=-1.
And then call these people as liars as you have implied with all the references given to you.
By the way, when you use the QUOTE box, respect the writer and use it properly.
Are you some kind of an idiot? Notice it is a question.
No I'm not, but I believe you are. Notice that is a statement.
Unfortunately, Apple has removed the Quicktime webcast. However, you can read the full transcript at http://seekingalpha.com/article/1674...script?page=-1.
And then call these people as liars as you have implied with all the references given to you.
I haven't called anyone 'liars', I just wanted a quote directly from Apple, rather than the third, or forth hand examples you are providing.
By the way, when you use the QUOTE box, respect the writer and use it properly.
I have to provide you respect even though you try to insult me? You have a serious issue, I suggest you get some help.
I have to provide you respect even though you try to insult me? You have a serious issue, I suggest you get some help.
Perhaps you should go back to your post #57 and ask yourself why did you insult me?
Perhaps you should go back to your post #57 and ask yourself why did you insult me?
What exactly did I say that was insulting?
So why didn't you include that in the first place, rather than trying to look like a hero with the late information.
And just what does that mean?
And just what does that mean?
That means you posted a small piece of information to attract someone to complain, when I did you ran in with your quote, to look like a hero.
If you think that is an insult, you need to get out more.
That means you posted a small piece of information to attract someone to complain, when I did you ran in with your quote, to look like a hero.
If you think that is an insult, you need to get out more.
That is bizzarely paranoid.
And "you need to get out more" is a highly amusing (and ironic) comeback on an internet forum populated by geeks engaged in a flamefest.