This is the fanboi's response. Unfortunately this is probably the attitude in the board room at Apple. And this attitude will bite the Apple's ass in a really big way.
One really easy way to increase iPhone sales is to...get ready, you knew someone was gonna bring this up...open the phone to other carriers. The public wants it, it will make everyone money and it's a good business decision.
But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that. And if your a rabid fanboi you support that decision.
So live with the results.
Are you so small minded as to think that opening the US market to Verizon (and the other little guys will move the needle more than 4-8M sales per year. In most countries they are already with multiple carriers. AT&T is the anomaly which by all accounts is about to expire. More carriers in the US is a minor lever in going from 50-130M. Getting yearly upgrades and converting dumb-to-smartphone users and improving distribution in emerging markets will be much more important to the iPhone.
Carriers are utterly irrelevant to the iPod touch and ipads in the 130M and a lot of the total growth will come from iPads (28-36M in 2011).
My point is very simple. The iPhone has reached a saturation point. They are not going to sell a LOT more unless they open up to other carriers and try to rope in the fence sitters who don't want to be married to ATT for two years.
You called my response stupid. That's like calling me stupid. May I remind you that name calling is not allowed here. I'm afraid I'm going to have to report you.
Your simple point is incredibly wrong. In a world where smartphones capture 10% of total phone sales the growth is in taking the other 90%. Why won't you realize that the VZW issue is minor in the global scheme of things.
Yes, US iPhone growth could make a decent leap ahead with the addition of VZW but it is small beer in the growth to 130M total iOS devices.
Did you read the article you linked? Yes, "good" sales of Droid phones (no numbers by actual model since the expensive phones would look pretty weak).
Total Moto sales this year in smartphones 12-14M units. Apple iPhone sales ~40M
Net results. Moto phone unit loses >$250M in the quarter.
Total net margin for all units - 3%
Apple last quarter - net income >$3Bn, Net Margin 21%
Yeah - Droid is saving Moto but hardly driving them to their former glory. They are now another commodity OEM where Google makes the real money while Moto has to battle HTC, Sammy, LG, Dell etc. who are all attacking each other's profits.
Developers, mind share, momentum moving to Android should be a concern to Apple.
This is not true. Its the same price to buy an iPhone 4, Droid Incredible and Droid X right now - $200. But with AT&T's plans, it is cheaper to pay for monthly service on an iPhone than the other two phones.
Devs are not "moving" to Android. They are porting iphone apps over (who wouldn't) but they make very little money in Android. Average app spend in Android is far lower, piracy is much higher, available countries is much smaller, Market is relatively a mess, etc. iPhone remains very strongly the best marketplace for Devs by a very wide margin.
High-end Droids do cost the same but sell in much lower volumes than iPhone. iPhone dominates the high end. Consumers don't yet care about Android - that is a geek thing. Notice that manufacturers almost never release actual sales for specific models because they always look inferior to iPhones. Remember the Evo opening weekend - very weak sauce compared to iPhone. Orig Droid sold about 2.5M in 2 quarters much of that time spent in BOGO bins or discounted to $49. Like PCs, Apple owns the high end. Dell makes the Adamo - doesn't mean it sell well.
For a man who seems to know business you are asking a simple question. Were I the sole owner of a company the profits would be mine. Since the Apple shareholders would benefit from getting a dividend, but are not getting a dividend, it is safe to assume that the profit motive - which is all about getting money in the owner's hands, not keeping it in the company - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
Here is something that Apple could do to maximise profitability.
1) Sell windows machines. Using their brand and industrial design these machines would sell.
2) Lose IOS and adopt Android. The cost of Android is free, and Apple could trade on it's undoubted industrial design skills to stay ahead of the competition while losing all the development costs.
That is what a profit maximising company would do. It is not what Apple are going to do, the motivation that Apple has is not profit but market share. There is another ideology about owning the whole widget ( which I think misguided) but all the engineers, all the managers, all the executives in Apple want to win the OS wars in the mobile space against Google.
Human beings are not that simple.
My god - could you have got it any more bizzaro world?
Remember profit maximizing is the goal.
1) Apple makes 35% of total global PC industry profit off 3.5% market share. Most $ profit of all PC makers including HP. Margins an order of magnitude better than most OEMs.
2) Android - enter a highly competitive market where 10 handset OEMs are stripping the profit out of each other by releasing the next best phone 3 weeks after the last one. Moto's last quarter - lost $250M on the phone unit alone even with its "great" Droid sales. Total Moto margins 1/7th of Apple's. Apple profit 15x Moto (total company)
Apple have never striven for market share except in their chosen segment (high end). The iPod is an anomaly - accidental market dominance due to total lack of competition in device + music ecosystem. If they take high share, they have to offer cheap products that the industry has proven have terrible margins (profit).
As long as Apple can take 15% of the mobile market, sell 130M iOS devices at an ASP of $500 would be $65Bn with about $14Bn in profit - JUST FROM iOS devices. That would be 2x as much profit as Google made last year. Apple has no interest in beating Google except perhaps (but not even) in the high-end market.
If Apple can take 15% of the global PC market, it would create a similarly large and profitable PC business (>$75Bn rev $16Bn profit)
That is profit maximization. The antithesis of everything you said.
The rest of your arguments are equally spurious. Apple has no dividend but are you pretending that the Capital Gains achieved by Apple's stock growth isn't vastly better than any dividends could be.
What Apple realizes is that the only way to capture maximum profit is to own all the pieces. Who makes most profit in the PC value chain (non-Mac) - Microsoft and Best Buy (retail). Who will make most out of Android - Google (via Ads) OEMs will be reamed (again but each other) which is just what you suggested Apple should do to profit maximize - INSANE!
In that case, the stockholders are getting ripped off.
I think it's more precisely stated as maximum profit not being Apple's primary focus. Steve has gone on record several times (interviews, speeches etc.) that Apple focusses on making great products, and profit is simply a natural consequence.
It's a strategy that works incredibly well; see Capnbob's post.
I think it's more precisely stated as maximum profit not being Apple's primary focus. Steve has gone on record several times (interviews, speeches etc.) that Apple focusses on making great products, and profit is simply a natural consequence.
It's a strategy that works incredibly well; see Capnbob's post.
OK. Use words nay way that makes you happy. Maximum profit is Apple's exclusive goal, but not their focus. We agree (for some definitions of "goal" and "focus").
BTW, Steve will say anything that will increase Apple's profits, given that maximizing profits is his primary job at Apple.
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!...
This is total BS.
Don't export your capitalist theories into the minds of other people and companies that you know nothing about.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
Businesses can't survive if they don't make a profit and don't grow. That *doesn't* necessarily equate to "money is all" or "profit is the only duty of the company" or any similar right-wing bullshit.
Don't export your capitalist theories into the minds of other people and companies that you know nothing about.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
Businesses can't survive if they don't make a profit and don't grow. That *doesn't* necessarily equate to "money is all" or "profit is the only duty of the company" or any similar right-wing bullshit.
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
This is total BS.
Don't export your capitalist theories into the minds of other people and companies that you know nothing about.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
Businesses can't survive if they don't make a profit and don't grow. That *doesn't* necessarily equate to "money is all" or "profit is the only duty of the company" or any similar right-wing bullshit.
First: it is not BS.
Second: it is not my capitalistic theory.
Third: I suspect I know more about companies than you do-- having worked for several Fortune 500 companies, had hundreds of same for customers, and started and run a few businesses of my own.
Now, that the pissing contest is over...
I said that the goal of business is profit at the risk of a loss-- the profit motive. Do a web search and you will find the definitions.
I never said (and neither does the profit motive assert) that profit is the only goal...
Rather, that it is the overriding goal, because without profit, the company ceases to exist-- all the other goals are moot.
A simple example:
You are the CEO of a small company that is losing money.
At the rate you are losing money, you will go out of business in 2 months.
You can implement an austerity program, cut jobs by 50% and earn a slight profit.
This is a no-brainer!
Certainly, you are concerned about your employees -- they are your greatest asset.
But, with no profit, you will have no company and no employees.
Which decision, benefits society more-- going out of business or eliminating 50% of your employees?
Admittedly, this is a overly-simplistic example!
The point is that the profit motive must be the overriding consideration of every decision a business executive takes.
Satisfying the primary overriding goal, allows a company to pursue secondary, possibly more altruistic, goals.
An example:
In the 1960-1970s IBM was a very profitable Company. That profit allowed IBM to open a wiring plant in the wasteland of Bedford-Stuyvestant, NY.
This investment brought jobs and services to a depressed area... at break-even or a small loss to IBM.
I sincerely doubt that Bed-Stuy would have happened, had IBM been losing money (or was even marginally profitable).
If that is the embodiment of a right-wing capitalist... count me in!
The rest of your arguments are equally spurious. Apple has no dividend but are you pretending that the Capital Gains achieved by Apple's stock growth isn't vastly better than any dividends could be.
What Apple realizes is that the only way to capture maximum profit is to own all the pieces. Who makes most profit in the PC value chain (non-Mac) - Microsoft and Best Buy (retail). Who will make most out of Android - Google (via Ads) OEMs will be reamed (again but each other) which is just what you suggested Apple should do to profit maximize - INSANE!
The question I was answering was this: Is Apple's goal to make profits.
Since it doesnt pay dividends it's goal is not to make profits. If profits are not distributed the the shareholders they are not earned by the owners. I said that capital gains are not profits, which theya re not. A reduction in profits can lead to capital increases - i.e. if APple said they were going to reduce margins to get more market share. If APple were a dividend paying company penion funds and others would leave the stock if dividends were removed ( like with GM and Freddie Mac) , reducing the price of the stock. Since it doesnt pay dividends - since profits are not given to the owners, that wont happen to APple if it decides to cut margins.
This is actually the way the company works.
I also created a few scenarios - like selling Windows machines trading on their brand - where both profit and growth could accelerate, and a pure profit maximising company would do that. Apple wont do that since selling Windows machines is not in it's DNA.
Added to that the fact that ( were it to happen) a halving of APple's stock would have no effect on day to day activities, that they have vast reserves in the bank, that they are not going to go to the market for money any time soon ( an therefore the price of the stock doesnt matter to them except as a proxy fpr what the market thinks of their potential for future growth); well you can see that Apple is a company which can easily trade profit for future growth.
Steve Jobs never talks about Apple's Market capitalization. He doesn't care.
Apple will reduce margins, and try and sell the iPhone and iPad cheaper ( as they did with the original iPhone within months) if they have to, since most employees of Apple, including Jobs want iOS to dominate the modern SmartPhone market ( which is, by the way, by necessity high end. The requirements for the next Android release are 512 Mb of RAM).
Thats what gets them up in the morning, not making profits for shareholders who dont earn dividends.
In fact, since I am on a role here, Apple's model is like a start up.
People, generally professional investors, invest in startups for market share growth not Earnings Per Share (EPS). So investors will be unimpressed by a company which looks like it is earning a small profit, on tiny market share, with no potential growth ( like say, a Mom and Pop restaurant) - but very impressed by a company which is taking losses, on exponential growth in it's market. Like early google. Monetise later.
Due diligence will be applied to any round of funding, of course, but if the losses are due to the cost of growing, then the investors will re-invest.
Apple investors are investing for future growth in the size of the company; in capital appreciation, not in EPS or margins. Apple does not pay dividends. Shareholders get no share of profits.
If APple comes out next quarter and announces that it didn't make sales targets but did meet increase it's earnings per share because it increased margins it would plunge.
If Apple comes out next quarter and guides low for the next quarter on sales, but said margins would increase, and thus EPS. It would plunge.
Margins are not what attract Apple's investors, so the idea that Apple needs to be high end is nonsense.
It needs to dominate the Phone Market or it will see it's market capitalisation drop. It can, and should, trade quarterly profitability for market share.
The question I was answering was this: Is Apple's goal to make profits.
The answer is yes! What do you think would happen to investors and that $42 Billion if Apple posted several quarters of losses and took no action to remedy the situation?
Quote:
Steve Jobs never talks about Apple's Market capitalization. He doesn't care.
Steve Jobs never talks about his wife and family -- I guess he doesn't care about them either (or, maybe we're not around when he discusses them).
In fact, since I am on a role here, Apple's model is like a start up.
People, generally professional investors, invest in startups for market share growth not Earnings Per Share (EPS). So investors will be unimpressed by a company which looks like it is earning a small profit, on tiny market share, with no potential growth ( like say, a Mom and Pop restaurant) - but very impressed by a company which is taking losses, on exponential growth in it's market. Like early google. Monetise later.
Due diligence will be applied to any round of funding, of course, but if the losses are due to the cost of growing, then the investors will re-invest.
Apple investors are investing for future growth in the size of the company; in capital appreciation, not in EPS or margins. Apple does not pay dividends. Shareholders get no share of profits.
If APple comes out next quarter and announces that it didn't make sales targets but did meet increase it's earnings per share because it increased margins it would plunge.
If Apple comes out next quarter and guides low for the next quarter on sales, but said margins would increase, and thus EPS. It would plunge.
Margins are not what attract Apple's investors, so the idea that Apple needs to be high end is nonsense.
It needs to dominate the Phone Market or it will see it's market capitalisation drop. It can, and should, trade quarterly profitability for market share.
Comments
This is the fanboi's response. Unfortunately this is probably the attitude in the board room at Apple. And this attitude will bite the Apple's ass in a really big way.
One really easy way to increase iPhone sales is to...get ready, you knew someone was gonna bring this up...open the phone to other carriers. The public wants it, it will make everyone money and it's a good business decision.
But when you have a CEO with an ego as big as the North American continent you just don't do that. And if your a rabid fanboi you support that decision.
So live with the results.
Are you so small minded as to think that opening the US market to Verizon (and the other little guys will move the needle more than 4-8M sales per year. In most countries they are already with multiple carriers. AT&T is the anomaly which by all accounts is about to expire. More carriers in the US is a minor lever in going from 50-130M. Getting yearly upgrades and converting dumb-to-smartphone users and improving distribution in emerging markets will be much more important to the iPhone.
Carriers are utterly irrelevant to the iPod touch and ipads in the 130M and a lot of the total growth will come from iPads (28-36M in 2011).
My point is very simple. The iPhone has reached a saturation point. They are not going to sell a LOT more unless they open up to other carriers and try to rope in the fence sitters who don't want to be married to ATT for two years.
You called my response stupid. That's like calling me stupid. May I remind you that name calling is not allowed here. I'm afraid I'm going to have to report you.
Your simple point is incredibly wrong. In a world where smartphones capture 10% of total phone sales the growth is in taking the other 90%. Why won't you realize that the VZW issue is minor in the global scheme of things.
Yes, US iPhone growth could make a decent leap ahead with the addition of VZW but it is small beer in the growth to 130M total iOS devices.
Motorola's Second-Quarter Profit Tops Estimates on Droid Sales
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...oid-sales.html
Maybe Moto could afford to buy you a clue.
Did you read the article you linked? Yes, "good" sales of Droid phones (no numbers by actual model since the expensive phones would look pretty weak).
Total Moto sales this year in smartphones 12-14M units. Apple iPhone sales ~40M
Net results. Moto phone unit loses >$250M in the quarter.
Total net margin for all units - 3%
Apple last quarter - net income >$3Bn, Net Margin 21%
Yeah - Droid is saving Moto but hardly driving them to their former glory. They are now another commodity OEM where Google makes the real money while Moto has to battle HTC, Sammy, LG, Dell etc. who are all attacking each other's profits.
Developers, mind share, momentum moving to Android should be a concern to Apple.
This is not true. Its the same price to buy an iPhone 4, Droid Incredible and Droid X right now - $200. But with AT&T's plans, it is cheaper to pay for monthly service on an iPhone than the other two phones.
Devs are not "moving" to Android. They are porting iphone apps over (who wouldn't) but they make very little money in Android. Average app spend in Android is far lower, piracy is much higher, available countries is much smaller, Market is relatively a mess, etc. iPhone remains very strongly the best marketplace for Devs by a very wide margin.
High-end Droids do cost the same but sell in much lower volumes than iPhone. iPhone dominates the high end. Consumers don't yet care about Android - that is a geek thing. Notice that manufacturers almost never release actual sales for specific models because they always look inferior to iPhones. Remember the Evo opening weekend - very weak sauce compared to iPhone. Orig Droid sold about 2.5M in 2 quarters much of that time spent in BOGO bins or discounted to $49. Like PCs, Apple owns the high end. Dell makes the Adamo - doesn't mean it sell well.
For a man who seems to know business you are asking a simple question. Were I the sole owner of a company the profits would be mine. Since the Apple shareholders would benefit from getting a dividend, but are not getting a dividend, it is safe to assume that the profit motive - which is all about getting money in the owner's hands, not keeping it in the company - is not what drives either Apple, or it's shareholders.
Here is something that Apple could do to maximise profitability.
1) Sell windows machines. Using their brand and industrial design these machines would sell.
2) Lose IOS and adopt Android. The cost of Android is free, and Apple could trade on it's undoubted industrial design skills to stay ahead of the competition while losing all the development costs.
That is what a profit maximising company would do. It is not what Apple are going to do, the motivation that Apple has is not profit but market share. There is another ideology about owning the whole widget ( which I think misguided) but all the engineers, all the managers, all the executives in Apple want to win the OS wars in the mobile space against Google.
Human beings are not that simple.
My god - could you have got it any more bizzaro world?
Remember profit maximizing is the goal.
1) Apple makes 35% of total global PC industry profit off 3.5% market share. Most $ profit of all PC makers including HP. Margins an order of magnitude better than most OEMs.
2) Android - enter a highly competitive market where 10 handset OEMs are stripping the profit out of each other by releasing the next best phone 3 weeks after the last one. Moto's last quarter - lost $250M on the phone unit alone even with its "great" Droid sales. Total Moto margins 1/7th of Apple's. Apple profit 15x Moto (total company)
Apple have never striven for market share except in their chosen segment (high end). The iPod is an anomaly - accidental market dominance due to total lack of competition in device + music ecosystem. If they take high share, they have to offer cheap products that the industry has proven have terrible margins (profit).
As long as Apple can take 15% of the mobile market, sell 130M iOS devices at an ASP of $500 would be $65Bn with about $14Bn in profit - JUST FROM iOS devices. That would be 2x as much profit as Google made last year. Apple has no interest in beating Google except perhaps (but not even) in the high-end market.
If Apple can take 15% of the global PC market, it would create a similarly large and profitable PC business (>$75Bn rev $16Bn profit)
That is profit maximization. The antithesis of everything you said.
The rest of your arguments are equally spurious. Apple has no dividend but are you pretending that the Capital Gains achieved by Apple's stock growth isn't vastly better than any dividends could be.
What Apple realizes is that the only way to capture maximum profit is to own all the pieces. Who makes most profit in the PC value chain (non-Mac) - Microsoft and Best Buy (retail). Who will make most out of Android - Google (via Ads) OEMs will be reamed (again but each other) which is just what you suggested Apple should do to profit maximize - INSANE!
My god - could you have got it any more bizzaro world?!
plus 1
You obviously understand nothing about Apple, marketing or business! Apple's goal is not maximum profits,
In that case, the stockholders are getting ripped off.
Maybe Moto could afford to buy you a clue.
brantdevlin asked how profitable Moto was. I gave some facts.
Sorry about that.
In that case, the stockholders are getting ripped off.
I think it's more precisely stated as maximum profit not being Apple's primary focus. Steve has gone on record several times (interviews, speeches etc.) that Apple focusses on making great products, and profit is simply a natural consequence.
It's a strategy that works incredibly well; see Capnbob's post.
I think it's more precisely stated as maximum profit not being Apple's primary focus. Steve has gone on record several times (interviews, speeches etc.) that Apple focusses on making great products, and profit is simply a natural consequence.
It's a strategy that works incredibly well; see Capnbob's post.
OK. Use words nay way that makes you happy. Maximum profit is Apple's exclusive goal, but not their focus. We agree (for some definitions of "goal" and "focus").
BTW, Steve will say anything that will increase Apple's profits, given that maximizing profits is his primary job at Apple.
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!...
This is total BS.
Don't export your capitalist theories into the minds of other people and companies that you know nothing about.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
Businesses can't survive if they don't make a profit and don't grow. That *doesn't* necessarily equate to "money is all" or "profit is the only duty of the company" or any similar right-wing bullshit.
This is total BS.
Don't export your capitalist theories into the minds of other people and companies that you know nothing about.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
Businesses can't survive if they don't make a profit and don't grow. That *doesn't* necessarily equate to "money is all" or "profit is the only duty of the company" or any similar right-wing bullshit.
You're just joking around, right?
Dick Applebaum
The goal of any business is profit at the risk of a loss-- called the profit motive.
Everything else is secondary!...
This is total BS.
Don't export your capitalist theories into the minds of other people and companies that you know nothing about.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
Businesses can't survive if they don't make a profit and don't grow. That *doesn't* necessarily equate to "money is all" or "profit is the only duty of the company" or any similar right-wing bullshit.
First: it is not BS.
Second: it is not my capitalistic theory.
Third: I suspect I know more about companies than you do-- having worked for several Fortune 500 companies, had hundreds of same for customers, and started and run a few businesses of my own.
Now, that the pissing contest is over...
I said that the goal of business is profit at the risk of a loss-- the profit motive. Do a web search and you will find the definitions.
I never said (and neither does the profit motive assert) that profit is the only goal...
Rather, that it is the overriding goal, because without profit, the company ceases to exist-- all the other goals are moot.
A simple example:
You are the CEO of a small company that is losing money.
At the rate you are losing money, you will go out of business in 2 months.
You can implement an austerity program, cut jobs by 50% and earn a slight profit.
This is a no-brainer!
Certainly, you are concerned about your employees -- they are your greatest asset.
But, with no profit, you will have no company and no employees.
Which decision, benefits society more-- going out of business or eliminating 50% of your employees?
Admittedly, this is a overly-simplistic example!
The point is that the profit motive must be the overriding consideration of every decision a business executive takes.
Satisfying the primary overriding goal, allows a company to pursue secondary, possibly more altruistic, goals.
An example:
In the 1960-1970s IBM was a very profitable Company. That profit allowed IBM to open a wiring plant in the wasteland of Bedford-Stuyvestant, NY.
This investment brought jobs and services to a depressed area... at break-even or a small loss to IBM.
I sincerely doubt that Bed-Stuy would have happened, had IBM been losing money (or was even marginally profitable).
If that is the embodiment of a right-wing capitalist... count me in!
.
The rest of your arguments are equally spurious. Apple has no dividend but are you pretending that the Capital Gains achieved by Apple's stock growth isn't vastly better than any dividends could be.
What Apple realizes is that the only way to capture maximum profit is to own all the pieces. Who makes most profit in the PC value chain (non-Mac) - Microsoft and Best Buy (retail). Who will make most out of Android - Google (via Ads) OEMs will be reamed (again but each other) which is just what you suggested Apple should do to profit maximize - INSANE!
The question I was answering was this: Is Apple's goal to make profits.
Since it doesnt pay dividends it's goal is not to make profits. If profits are not distributed the the shareholders they are not earned by the owners. I said that capital gains are not profits, which theya re not. A reduction in profits can lead to capital increases - i.e. if APple said they were going to reduce margins to get more market share. If APple were a dividend paying company penion funds and others would leave the stock if dividends were removed ( like with GM and Freddie Mac) , reducing the price of the stock. Since it doesnt pay dividends - since profits are not given to the owners, that wont happen to APple if it decides to cut margins.
This is actually the way the company works.
I also created a few scenarios - like selling Windows machines trading on their brand - where both profit and growth could accelerate, and a pure profit maximising company would do that. Apple wont do that since selling Windows machines is not in it's DNA.
Added to that the fact that ( were it to happen) a halving of APple's stock would have no effect on day to day activities, that they have vast reserves in the bank, that they are not going to go to the market for money any time soon ( an therefore the price of the stock doesnt matter to them except as a proxy fpr what the market thinks of their potential for future growth); well you can see that Apple is a company which can easily trade profit for future growth.
Steve Jobs never talks about Apple's Market capitalization. He doesn't care.
Apple will reduce margins, and try and sell the iPhone and iPad cheaper ( as they did with the original iPhone within months) if they have to, since most employees of Apple, including Jobs want iOS to dominate the modern SmartPhone market ( which is, by the way, by necessity high end. The requirements for the next Android release are 512 Mb of RAM).
Thats what gets them up in the morning, not making profits for shareholders who dont earn dividends.
In that case, the stockholders are getting ripped off.
well they are not getting any dividends, so maybe they should stop getting "ripped off" and go elsewhere.
People, generally professional investors, invest in startups for market share growth not Earnings Per Share (EPS). So investors will be unimpressed by a company which looks like it is earning a small profit, on tiny market share, with no potential growth ( like say, a Mom and Pop restaurant) - but very impressed by a company which is taking losses, on exponential growth in it's market. Like early google. Monetise later.
Due diligence will be applied to any round of funding, of course, but if the losses are due to the cost of growing, then the investors will re-invest.
Apple investors are investing for future growth in the size of the company; in capital appreciation, not in EPS or margins. Apple does not pay dividends. Shareholders get no share of profits.
If APple comes out next quarter and announces that it didn't make sales targets but did meet increase it's earnings per share because it increased margins it would plunge.
If Apple comes out next quarter and guides low for the next quarter on sales, but said margins would increase, and thus EPS. It would plunge.
Margins are not what attract Apple's investors, so the idea that Apple needs to be high end is nonsense.
It needs to dominate the Phone Market or it will see it's market capitalisation drop. It can, and should, trade quarterly profitability for market share.
The question I was answering was this: Is Apple's goal to make profits.
The answer is yes! What do you think would happen to investors and that $42 Billion if Apple posted several quarters of losses and took no action to remedy the situation?
Steve Jobs never talks about Apple's Market capitalization. He doesn't care.
Steve Jobs never talks about his wife and family -- I guess he doesn't care about them either (or, maybe we're not around when he discusses them).
.
In fact, since I am on a role here, Apple's model is like a start up.
People, generally professional investors, invest in startups for market share growth not Earnings Per Share (EPS). So investors will be unimpressed by a company which looks like it is earning a small profit, on tiny market share, with no potential growth ( like say, a Mom and Pop restaurant) - but very impressed by a company which is taking losses, on exponential growth in it's market. Like early google. Monetise later.
Due diligence will be applied to any round of funding, of course, but if the losses are due to the cost of growing, then the investors will re-invest.
Apple investors are investing for future growth in the size of the company; in capital appreciation, not in EPS or margins. Apple does not pay dividends. Shareholders get no share of profits.
If APple comes out next quarter and announces that it didn't make sales targets but did meet increase it's earnings per share because it increased margins it would plunge.
If Apple comes out next quarter and guides low for the next quarter on sales, but said margins would increase, and thus EPS. It would plunge.
Margins are not what attract Apple's investors, so the idea that Apple needs to be high end is nonsense.
It needs to dominate the Phone Market or it will see it's market capitalisation drop. It can, and should, trade quarterly profitability for market share.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
.
"Profit above all else" is a vapid, fascist philosophy that would ruin the world if businesses actually followed it.
But he never advocated that.
Maximization of profits within the bounds of the law is one of the things that has made the US a great country.
The question I was answering was this: Is Apple's goal to make profits.
Since it doesnt pay dividends it's goal is not to make profits.
Fer chrissakes crack open a dictionary.