In my experience the professional trolls (i.e, those with deep understanding and probably paid by MS, RIM et al) avoid the really good AAPL news like the plague.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackintosh
I think you mean touched, as in touched in the head!
At least we know why there was no iPhone 4 recall. Steve Mobs doesn't want to be second banana to monkey boy so we have to keep the numbers up.
Too bad these figures don't include the iPhone 4 and iPad return rates. No one will ever see those. Apple wouldn't want freak out the fanboi community by reveiling how many people return the iPhone 4 that can't hold a call and the flashless iPad that can't render 75 percent of the Internet.
We must be drinking some columbian kool aid to believe Apple is beating Microsoft at anything.
Exactly, this is the sort of pitiful thing that comes out for news like this.
Who is this idiot writing these analyses? Anybody with an accounting 101 class under their belt could do this.
For your information, if you have followed stock analysis, Andy Zaky has been very acurate (usually in the top 10) in predicting the performance of Apple. The last quarter ending June 2010, he ranked #4 in predicting the revenue and EPS of Apple. There were quarters when he was even more accurate.
In fact, when it comes to Apple, there are more non-professional analysts who did better than those claiming to be professional financial analysts employed by big financial institutions.
The caveat is that these non-professionals focus mainly on Apple and a few other related companies. These non-professionals really take the time to go deeper into Apple.
What a terribly written article! Could he repeat himself more? And does he think that hyperbole makes his points stronger?
"Such arguments not only reek of the highest level of financial irrationality, but they are also rooted in a dangerously mislead ideology. "
Really? THAT in response to the suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are not similar companies operationally? Talk about drinking the Kool Aid. This guy is in love.
NO!? That in response to the suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are not comparable from a financial perspective BECAUSE they are not similar companies operationally.
NO!? That in response to the suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are not comparable from a financial perspective BECAUSE they are not similar companies operationally.
Nit picking. The point is, you need to tone down the crazy rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously beyond the group of people whose hopes lie in AAPL going up.
\ There is one thing about technology that disappoints me: That is tech-users' inability to get along, see eye to eye, or generally agree about much of anything. Every company has innovations, and every company has mistakes. It's the classic battle of the fanboys, but it NEVER ENDS.... I love Apple. There's never been such a centralized, clean integration of new technology into the mainstream. This is what pushes the boundaries of our lifestyle. Yet I own a Mac and a PC. People are so caught up in opinions that they don't WANT progress unless it's from their company of choice. Every big company has to contribute for things to advance smoothly, or we'll get stuck in a nasty loop.
Financials are fun but they're only part of the big picture.
That's because you're ignorant, apparently. Try this thing called "Google." It's magical.
I searched "apple +deserve market cap" ON GOOGLE.
I found a Bloggingstocks.com article from last March, and a SeekingAlpha.com article from July. Add in the Appleinsder article, and it is fair to say that the question continues to mount.
This is why i am proud of being an ipad and iphone user.
Me too. It is the single biggest source of pride in my life. Any time I'm feeling down, I just remember that I own an iPhone, and I become proud of myself again.
Comparing gross revenues of AAPL and MSFT is irrelevant. No two companies are exactly alike, and yes there are ways to compare two dissimilar companies.
While it is not "inappropriate" to compare a predominantly hardware-focused company with a predominantly software-focused company, it is inappropriate to tout gross revenues (as if it means something) while dismissing this fundamental difference.
In the end, a "fundamental comparison" would recognize that MSFT *can* "push more of its revenue to the bottom line" (i.e. profits) because APPL *must* push more of its revenue to the manufacturers that build its physical products.
AAPL will ALWAYS have a higher cost of revenue ratio because they must manufacture hardware. Unless AAPL can significantly grow its software and/or online services divisions, it will take *significantly* more gross revenue than MSFT in order to be more "profitable" than MSFT.
If you choose to ignore this basic concept when comparing these companies, you should reconsider whether participating in the equity markets makes the most sense.
AAPL has done an amazing job over the years, but using revenues as a measure for "full supremacy" and "dominance" seems like desperate Apple-vs-Microsoft fanboy fare. Both Dell and HP have much higher revenues than AAPL, so what does that mean?
"Crowning the supreme leader of the tech sector as a whole" when you've already arbitrarily narrowed down the list of candidates to the "two tech giants" AAPL and MSFT will certainly take a masterful combination of cherry-picked facts with convoluted, imbred logic.
I'm not sure what you were looking at but when I look at those graphs I see impressive growth from Apple, not the accelerated demise of Microsoft.
Same thing.
There's an old joke:
Two campers saw a bear running towards them. ONe of them started to put on his running shoes. The other one asked him if he thought they would make him run faster than a bear.
The answer? I don't need to run faster than the bear. I just need to run faster than YOU!!!!
So all that Apple needs to do is run faster than Microsoft!!
I have a real job at a real bank where i get paid to analyze companies, i don't need to freelance on apple fanboy sites.
Andy Zaky, whom you termed an "idiot" in your previous post leading to this latest, is on the basis of his record one of the best analysts of Apple performance. His quarterly revenue and EPS estimates for AAPL, along with his estimates of product line sales, have consistently scored among the closest to reality among all the amateur and professional analysts out there. See
In the latest Fortune scorecard, he wasn't the closest of the bunch, but he was far from the worst. Some so-called Wall Street professionals make frankly terrible estimates time after time. Andy's been a lot closer to actual in previous quarters.
If a bank pays you to do company analysis, I have to wonder if your employer is getting its money's worth. Certainly your experience following AAPL is questionable; otherwise you'd know about the reputation of the individual you called an idiot. He knows what he's talking about. You don't.
I have a real job at a real bank where i get paid to analyze companies, i don't need to freelance on apple fanboy sites.
This explains why most major banks have made such horrible investment decisions over the past few years. The quality of their analysts is obviously questionable.
It's fair to compare Apple and M$, not because it's fair to compare everyone. But because while apple and MS recieve most of their $ from different segments (business vs consumer electronics) both compete in the consumer electronics space with WinMo, Zune, XBox, Windiws.
MS's growth is slowing while apple continues to grow. This is not as obvious from the charts as made believe in the article, but in the area of consumer devices I think there is no question of who has been doing the most growth. I mean WinMo is one device launch from death, tablets are moving to android while netbooks run ubuntu.
Some things I'm skeptical on:
Apple will continue this type of growth well into 2012 and will for sure be far ahead of MS I think that apple has ridden the wave of transition to mobile devices. There has been a huge growth and innovation potential in the market and apple has taken the most of it. I don't think however such huge growth can be sustained through 2012.
Apple deserves to be a market cap leader in the industry. No question it does today, but keep in mind that the economy is hurting, which means the rich continue to spend as they are not affected, while the poor have held back. Rich want the best and go for apple products, while poor just want a machine that works. I think that when the economy comes back there will be a slight boost to apple and a big boost for PC industry, which might catapult MS back to the top. Hopefully that happens before 2012 (improvement in the economy that is).
Comparing gross revenues of AAPL and MSFT is irrelevant. No two companies are exactly alike, and yes there are ways to compare two dissimilar companies.
While it is not "inappropriate" to compare a predominantly hardware-focused company with a predominantly software-focused company, it is inappropriate to tout gross revenues (as if it means something) while dismissing this fundamental difference.
In the end, a "fundamental comparison" would recognize that MSFT *can* "push more of its revenue to the bottom line" (i.e. profits) because APPL *must* push more of its revenue to the manufacturers that build its physical products.
AAPL will ALWAYS have a higher cost of revenue ratio because they must manufacture hardware. Unless AAPL can significantly grow its software and/or online services divisions, it will take *significantly* more gross revenue than MSFT in order to be more "profitable" than MSFT.
If you choose to ignore this basic concept when comparing these companies, you should reconsider whether participating in the equity markets makes the most sense.
AAPL has done an amazing job over the years, but using revenues as a measure for "full supremacy" and "dominance" seems like desperate Apple-vs-Microsoft fanboy fare. Both Dell and HP have much higher revenues than AAPL, so what does that mean?
"Crowning the supreme leader of the tech sector as a whole" when you've already arbitrarily narrowed down the list of candidates to the "two tech giants" AAPL and MSFT will certainly take a masterful combination of cherry-picked facts with convoluted, imbred logic.
I guess you chose to patently ignore this part of the article which simply discredits your criticism:
"Yet, when it comes to questions as to which company ought to have a larger market capitalization, total revenue is but a single of several factors that should be considered. Net income growth, total net income, total net cash, cash flow, book value, total assets and the economic sensitivity of each company’s primary operations are just a few of those other key factors."
Sorry I didn't choose to write a full 350 page dissertation. I didn't cherry pick which variables to use either. This article is one about revenue. Not about which company is more fundamentally sound, or more deserving of the largest market cap in the tech industry.
You can in fact compare any two companies in the equity markets from a fundamental basis using financial ratios, and an assessment of economic risk. One company can be more fundamental sound than another company even though each company doesn't operate in the same sector. You can compare Apple to Walmart, Microsoft to Goldman Sachs and Exxon to Target.
Yet, when it comes to the portfolio theory of diversification, obviously a cross-sector analysis makes sense. But to patently conclude that two companies aren't comparable because they operate in different sectors is plainly wrong. I'm not going to keep addressing this issue because there's no point in quarreling with unresisting imbecility.
Comments
Who is this idiot writing these analyses? Anybody with an accounting 101 class under their belt could do this.
Maybe, but I don't have accounting 101, so perhaps I'm the target audience.
While doubts as to whether Apple (AAPL) deserves to hold the second largest market cap in the U.S. continue to mount
...
Since when does deserving have anything to do with a company's worth.
In my experience the professional trolls (i.e, those with deep understanding and probably paid by MS, RIM et al) avoid the really good AAPL news like the plague.
I think you mean touched, as in touched in the head!
At least we know why there was no iPhone 4 recall. Steve Mobs doesn't want to be second banana to monkey boy so we have to keep the numbers up.
Too bad these figures don't include the iPhone 4 and iPad return rates. No one will ever see those. Apple wouldn't want freak out the fanboi community by reveiling how many people return the iPhone 4 that can't hold a call and the flashless iPad that can't render 75 percent of the Internet.
We must be drinking some columbian kool aid to believe Apple is beating Microsoft at anything.
Exactly, this is the sort of pitiful thing that comes out for news like this.
Who is this idiot writing these analyses? Anybody with an accounting 101 class under their belt could do this.
For your information, if you have followed stock analysis, Andy Zaky has been very acurate (usually in the top 10) in predicting the performance of Apple. The last quarter ending June 2010, he ranked #4 in predicting the revenue and EPS of Apple. There were quarters when he was even more accurate.
In fact, when it comes to Apple, there are more non-professional analysts who did better than those claiming to be professional financial analysts employed by big financial institutions.
The caveat is that these non-professionals focus mainly on Apple and a few other related companies. These non-professionals really take the time to go deeper into Apple.
CGC
What a terribly written article! Could he repeat himself more? And does he think that hyperbole makes his points stronger?
"Such arguments not only reek of the highest level of financial irrationality, but they are also rooted in a dangerously mislead ideology. "
Really? THAT in response to the suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are not similar companies operationally? Talk about drinking the Kool Aid. This guy is in love.
NO!? That in response to the suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are not comparable from a financial perspective BECAUSE they are not similar companies operationally.
NO!? That in response to the suggestion that Apple and Microsoft are not comparable from a financial perspective BECAUSE they are not similar companies operationally.
Nit picking. The point is, you need to tone down the crazy rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously beyond the group of people whose hopes lie in AAPL going up.
Cut the snark, man. Yes, what Zaky covers here is not rocket science, but it is nice to have different perspectives and issues covered on AI.
More important, if you're so darned smart, write something on the topic and submit it to AI for publication. Shut up, o/w.
I have a real job at a real bank where i get paid to analyze companies, i don't need to freelance on apple fanboy sites.
As with melting glaciers, the demise of Microsoft will accelerate. I doubt this will be a linear event.
I'm not sure what you were looking at but when I look at those graphs I see impressive growth from Apple, not the accelerated demise of Microsoft.
Financials are fun but they're only part of the big picture.
That's because you're ignorant, apparently. Try this thing called "Google." It's magical.
I searched "apple +deserve market cap" ON GOOGLE.
I found a Bloggingstocks.com article from last March, and a SeekingAlpha.com article from July. Add in the Appleinsder article, and it is fair to say that the question continues to mount.
This is why i am proud of being an ipad and iphone user.
Me too. It is the single biggest source of pride in my life. Any time I'm feeling down, I just remember that I own an iPhone, and I become proud of myself again.
My guess is MS is five years away from irrelevancy.
Do you really think that there will be no PCs or servers in 5 years? What about word processing and spreadsheets?
We can only hope!
While it is not "inappropriate" to compare a predominantly hardware-focused company with a predominantly software-focused company, it is inappropriate to tout gross revenues (as if it means something) while dismissing this fundamental difference.
In the end, a "fundamental comparison" would recognize that MSFT *can* "push more of its revenue to the bottom line" (i.e. profits) because APPL *must* push more of its revenue to the manufacturers that build its physical products.
AAPL will ALWAYS have a higher cost of revenue ratio because they must manufacture hardware. Unless AAPL can significantly grow its software and/or online services divisions, it will take *significantly* more gross revenue than MSFT in order to be more "profitable" than MSFT.
If you choose to ignore this basic concept when comparing these companies, you should reconsider whether participating in the equity markets makes the most sense.
AAPL has done an amazing job over the years, but using revenues as a measure for "full supremacy" and "dominance" seems like desperate Apple-vs-Microsoft fanboy fare. Both Dell and HP have much higher revenues than AAPL, so what does that mean?
"Crowning the supreme leader of the tech sector as a whole" when you've already arbitrarily narrowed down the list of candidates to the "two tech giants" AAPL and MSFT will certainly take a masterful combination of cherry-picked facts with convoluted, imbred logic.
I'm not sure what you were looking at but when I look at those graphs I see impressive growth from Apple, not the accelerated demise of Microsoft.
Same thing.
There's an old joke:
Two campers saw a bear running towards them. ONe of them started to put on his running shoes. The other one asked him if he thought they would make him run faster than a bear.
The answer? I don't need to run faster than the bear. I just need to run faster than YOU!!!!
So all that Apple needs to do is run faster than Microsoft!!
I have a real job at a real bank where i get paid to analyze companies, i don't need to freelance on apple fanboy sites.
Andy Zaky, whom you termed an "idiot" in your previous post leading to this latest, is on the basis of his record one of the best analysts of Apple performance. His quarterly revenue and EPS estimates for AAPL, along with his estimates of product line sales, have consistently scored among the closest to reality among all the amateur and professional analysts out there. See
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...pple-analysts/
In the latest Fortune scorecard, he wasn't the closest of the bunch, but he was far from the worst. Some so-called Wall Street professionals make frankly terrible estimates time after time. Andy's been a lot closer to actual in previous quarters.
If a bank pays you to do company analysis, I have to wonder if your employer is getting its money's worth. Certainly your experience following AAPL is questionable; otherwise you'd know about the reputation of the individual you called an idiot. He knows what he's talking about. You don't.
I have a real job at a real bank where i get paid to analyze companies, i don't need to freelance on apple fanboy sites.
This explains why most major banks have made such horrible investment decisions over the past few years. The quality of their analysts is obviously questionable.
It's fair to compare Apple and M$, not because it's fair to compare everyone. But because while apple and MS recieve most of their $ from different segments (business vs consumer electronics) both compete in the consumer electronics space with WinMo, Zune, XBox, Windiws.
MS's growth is slowing while apple continues to grow. This is not as obvious from the charts as made believe in the article, but in the area of consumer devices I think there is no question of who has been doing the most growth. I mean WinMo is one device launch from death, tablets are moving to android while netbooks run ubuntu.
Some things I'm skeptical on:
Apple will continue this type of growth well into 2012 and will for sure be far ahead of MS I think that apple has ridden the wave of transition to mobile devices. There has been a huge growth and innovation potential in the market and apple has taken the most of it. I don't think however such huge growth can be sustained through 2012.
Apple deserves to be a market cap leader in the industry. No question it does today, but keep in mind that the economy is hurting, which means the rich continue to spend as they are not affected, while the poor have held back. Rich want the best and go for apple products, while poor just want a machine that works. I think that when the economy comes back there will be a slight boost to apple and a big boost for PC industry, which might catapult MS back to the top. Hopefully that happens before 2012 (improvement in the economy that is).
Comparing gross revenues of AAPL and MSFT is irrelevant. No two companies are exactly alike, and yes there are ways to compare two dissimilar companies.
While it is not "inappropriate" to compare a predominantly hardware-focused company with a predominantly software-focused company, it is inappropriate to tout gross revenues (as if it means something) while dismissing this fundamental difference.
In the end, a "fundamental comparison" would recognize that MSFT *can* "push more of its revenue to the bottom line" (i.e. profits) because APPL *must* push more of its revenue to the manufacturers that build its physical products.
AAPL will ALWAYS have a higher cost of revenue ratio because they must manufacture hardware. Unless AAPL can significantly grow its software and/or online services divisions, it will take *significantly* more gross revenue than MSFT in order to be more "profitable" than MSFT.
If you choose to ignore this basic concept when comparing these companies, you should reconsider whether participating in the equity markets makes the most sense.
AAPL has done an amazing job over the years, but using revenues as a measure for "full supremacy" and "dominance" seems like desperate Apple-vs-Microsoft fanboy fare. Both Dell and HP have much higher revenues than AAPL, so what does that mean?
"Crowning the supreme leader of the tech sector as a whole" when you've already arbitrarily narrowed down the list of candidates to the "two tech giants" AAPL and MSFT will certainly take a masterful combination of cherry-picked facts with convoluted, imbred logic.
I guess you chose to patently ignore this part of the article which simply discredits your criticism:
"Yet, when it comes to questions as to which company ought to have a larger market capitalization, total revenue is but a single of several factors that should be considered. Net income growth, total net income, total net cash, cash flow, book value, total assets and the economic sensitivity of each company’s primary operations are just a few of those other key factors."
Sorry I didn't choose to write a full 350 page dissertation. I didn't cherry pick which variables to use either. This article is one about revenue. Not about which company is more fundamentally sound, or more deserving of the largest market cap in the tech industry.
You can in fact compare any two companies in the equity markets from a fundamental basis using financial ratios, and an assessment of economic risk. One company can be more fundamental sound than another company even though each company doesn't operate in the same sector. You can compare Apple to Walmart, Microsoft to Goldman Sachs and Exxon to Target.
Yet, when it comes to the portfolio theory of diversification, obviously a cross-sector analysis makes sense. But to patently conclude that two companies aren't comparable because they operate in different sectors is plainly wrong. I'm not going to keep addressing this issue because there's no point in quarreling with unresisting imbecility.
I have a real job at a real bank where i get paid to analyze companies, i don't need to freelance on apple fanboy sites.
Good. Do your job, and spare us, AppleStud (not fanboy)!
Good. Do your job, and spare us, AppleStud (not fanboy)!
TechStud is back?