PS. Android may be a good phone OS...but you don't get the Apple eco-system. Desktop (iMac) OS (OSX, iLife & iWork), mobility with the iPad (Safari, apps, etc.) and the iPhone & MobileMe....it all has to "work" and with Apple, it just does!
And by "work," I mean, Syncing contacts, email, bookmarks, listening to and organizing music, video, etc.
PS. Android may be a good phone...but you don't get the Apple eco-system. Desktop (iMac) OS (OSX, iLife & iWork), mobility with the iPad (Safari, apps, etc.) and the iPhone & MobileMe....it all has to "work" and with Apple, it just does!
And by "work," I mean, Syncing contacts, email, bookmarks, listening to and organizing music, video, etc.
Best!
Yeah, I've helped a few clients who just bought Android phones - inevitably their issue was - how do I get contacts synced the right way with my (Outlook, Outlook Express, webmail)? Not having a desktop sync utility is (currently) a shortcoming.
Personally I really like the ability to sync to Gmail as an Exchange server, but for people expecting to sync with Outlook, i'ts a problem.
Revenue projection for the next quarter is 30% more than the current quarter, but earnings projection stays pretty much the same. This points to significantly lower margin expectation for the Xmas quarter. The only explanation I can think of is that Apple plans to sell significantly more iPods in the Xmas quarter and iPods have lower margin than other Apple products...
Yeah, I've helped a few clients who just bought Android phones - inevitably their issue was - how do I get contacts synced the right way with my (Outlook, Outlook Express, webmail)? Not having a desktop sync utility is (currently) a shortcoming.
Personally I really like the ability to sync to Gmail as an Exchange server, but for people expecting to sync with Outlook, i'ts a problem.
Yep. My GF just did her taxes on her sister's Dell with Windows/turbotax and we had a devil of a time getting it to load what she had already entered in!
Google has a strange business model to be sure. I am pretty sure they could have charged for their OS and still sold just as many.
Actually, it's an interesting question. While manufacturers get the OS for free, they have to pay Google for the apps that Google has for it. The estimate is that costs almost as much as what MS charges makers for the OS AND the apps.
This is why some makers replace a Google app with another.
And the company that makes it, charges zero for it. Is that a rival?
C.
That's not entirely true as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Google charges for their apps, such as Maps. Only the OS is free.
They also reported mobile advertising revenue of $1 billion, mostly gotten from Android phones.
So, yes, they are a rival.
Don't believe their BS about openness, and being worried that Apple would take over the market because that would be bad for people. It's ALL about money. Nothing else. If Apple had a majority of the Smartphone market, it would be bad for Google.
The amazing thing is that they truly believe that it goes down after every earnings report. Goes to show you what a short term memory they really have.
And for anyone comparing AAPL to MSFT in revenue, please go take a course in finance. Or compare AAPL to WMT in revenue and figure out for yourself the pointlessness of comparing AAPL to MSFT.
Comparing Apple to MS isn't meaningful financially - yet.
But it has a psychological value. MS is their greatest rival, though Google is coming up fast to rival both.
If Apple gets big enough, the MS can falter. Apple's sales take away from MS, and visa versa. If Apple can push MS out of the consumer market in phones and tablets, then they can push them out of netbooks and notebooks. Then possibly desktops as well. They can push them out of gaming.
The point is that MS may find themselves more constrained as Apple gains ascendency. That will limit their profits and sales. It could constrict them to government and enterprise sales while consumer sales may drop to less than meaningful levels. MS would shrink.
This affects all PC manufacturers of course.
So, MS and Apple can be compared, it just may not seem to be the case yet.
It is a difficult one for that and other reasons. Apple really competes with Dell, HP, HTC, Samsung etc. and none of them can hold a candle on their own to Apple's financial performance (the subject of the day).
RIM gets mentioned since they are the largest smartphone-only purveyor (Nokia sells everything) and are a good comparator for Apple. You could mention HTC or Moto but it wouldn't even be close.
Android as a platform is obviously a competitor but the evidence so far is that it is not really impacting iOS much. The high-end sales are going to Apple haters, geeks or people who can't get iPhone on their network so few actual lost sales there and the rest of the sales are cheap Androids which Apple has no interest in competing with and comes with much lower content/app sales and lower profitability to the OEM.
Android is inherently a low profitability platform for everyone (except Google) and even for Google, it is a low revenue platform - estimated at $10 per user per year currently.
Where is your evidence that Android isn't impacting iOS much? And where do you get that Google gets about $10 a year out of Android?
We do know that Google made $1 billion this quarter from mobile Ads. Most of that came from Ads on Android devices, much of the rest from on iOS devices.
We also know that they charge for Android apps, though not the OS.
And therein lies a nice (for us) parallel between this whole Google OS and 3rd party hardware and MS and the same. None of them are making enough money to compete with Apple's R&D or marketing (excepting Google and MS).
And for anyone comparing AAPL to MSFT in revenue, please go take a course in finance. Or compare AAPL to WMT in revenue and figure out for yourself the pointlessness of comparing AAPL to MSFT.
They are the 2nd largest computer company in valuation, with Apple being the largest. Apple has likely just just bested them in revenue and likely to best them in profit within a year. There will also be comparisons to XOM and AAPL?s revenue and profit as Apple gets closer to Exxon?s valuation.
Based on your objection there is no company that Apple can ever be compared to.
Pretty sure they've not quite made a $20Bn quarter - Holiday quarter last year (Q2) was $19Bn. Apple has just pipped them for the year. MS made $62.5Bn for the FY ending July 2010 while Apple just did >$65Bn. MS still more profitable but unsurprising since the vast majority of their profit is from software only.
It is mind boggling that Apple can approach their profitability on largely hardware sales - it is absolutely unprecedented. Not even Nokia in its near-monopoly days could pull this.
Comparing Apple to MS isn't meaningful financially - yet.
But it has a psychological value. MS is their greatest rival, though Google is coming up fast to rival both.
If Apple gets big enough, the MS can falter. Apple's sales take away from MS, and visa versa. If Apple can push MS out of the consumer market in phones and tablets, then they can push them out of netbooks and notebooks. Then possibly desktops as well. They can push them out of gaming.
The point is that MS may find themselves more constrained as Apple gains ascendency. That will limit their profits and sales. It could constrict them to government and enterprise sales while consumer sales may drop to less than meaningful levels. MS would shrink.
This affects all PC manufacturers of course.
So, MS and Apple can be compared, it just may not seem to be the case yet.
And none of this has anything to do with actual revenue amounts, which is the point.
They are the 2nd largest computer company in valuation, with Apple being the largest. Apple has likely just just bested them in revenue and likely to best them in profit within a year. There will also be comparisons to XOM and AAPL?s revenue and profit as Apple gets closer to Exxon?s valuation.
Based on your objection there is no company that Apple can ever be compared to.
You're putting some words into my mouth there. Just because Apple and MS don't run similar businesses as a whole doesn't mean nobody does. I can't believe I'm even saying this, it's so obvious, but... Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they sell software. Apple sells very little software. From a financial reports perspective, they could hardly be more different. Apple fanboys get a kick out of comparing them, but no one who matters thinks about it.
Revenue projection for the next quarter is 30% more than the current quarter, but earnings projection stays pretty much the same. This points to significantly lower margin expectation for the Xmas quarter. The only explanation I can think of is that Apple plans to sell significantly more iPods in the Xmas quarter and iPods have lower margin than other Apple products...
I see iPad being the console present of Christmas.
You're putting some words into my mouth there. Just because Apple and MS don't run similar businesses as a whole doesn't mean nobody does. I can't believe I'm even saying this, it's so obvious, but... Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they sell software. Apple sells very little software. From a financial reports perspective, they could hardly be more different. Apple fanboys get a kick out of comparing them, but no one who matters thinks about it.
Apple always says that crap. I like their stuff, but that is no information at all. Steve gets excited about Mobile Me - which should be free, but it's $99.
And none of this has anything to do with actual revenue amounts, which is the point.
You're wrong. The bigger a company is, the more ability it has to do what it needs to do.
Do you naively think that if MS hadn't gotten big enough, and hadn't made so much in monopoly profits it would be where it is today? I hope not!
Do you think the XBox would still be around if they didn't subsidize it? It wouldn't. Same thing for the Zune, and a number of other areas such as search.
The same thing is true for Apple. Their size these days allows them to make purchases others can't match. They get better pricing, which makes their products more competitive than otherwise.
And, like it or not, MS is Apple's real competitor, not Dell or Hp, or Acer, or others.
As Apple gets bigger, it puts more pressure on MS, and it hurts their sales and earnings. to a certain extent, as Apple does better, it holds MS back from doing as well as they would. So it's a useful metric in some ways, though, as I said, it will become more so in the future.
If you don't see that, well, I hope you don't advise on investments.
You got it. Commentators? Analysts? Why would they matter? All they do is try to generate content that makes dummy fanboys pay them with ad clicks or for stock tips.
Comments
PS. Android may be a good phone OS...but you don't get the Apple eco-system. Desktop (iMac) OS (OSX, iLife & iWork), mobility with the iPad (Safari, apps, etc.) and the iPhone & MobileMe....it all has to "work" and with Apple, it just does!
And by "work," I mean, Syncing contacts, email, bookmarks, listening to and organizing music, video, etc.
Best!
Good for Apple!
PS. Android may be a good phone...but you don't get the Apple eco-system. Desktop (iMac) OS (OSX, iLife & iWork), mobility with the iPad (Safari, apps, etc.) and the iPhone & MobileMe....it all has to "work" and with Apple, it just does!
And by "work," I mean, Syncing contacts, email, bookmarks, listening to and organizing music, video, etc.
Best!
Yeah, I've helped a few clients who just bought Android phones - inevitably their issue was - how do I get contacts synced the right way with my (Outlook, Outlook Express, webmail)? Not having a desktop sync utility is (currently) a shortcoming.
Personally I really like the ability to sync to Gmail as an Exchange server, but for people expecting to sync with Outlook, i'ts a problem.
Revenue projection for the next quarter is 30% more than the current quarter, but earnings projection stays pretty much the same. This points to significantly lower margin expectation for the Xmas quarter. The only explanation I can think of is that Apple plans to sell significantly more iPods in the Xmas quarter and iPods have lower margin than other Apple products...
iPads. The margins are lower on iPads.
Yeah, I've helped a few clients who just bought Android phones - inevitably their issue was - how do I get contacts synced the right way with my (Outlook, Outlook Express, webmail)? Not having a desktop sync utility is (currently) a shortcoming.
Personally I really like the ability to sync to Gmail as an Exchange server, but for people expecting to sync with Outlook, i'ts a problem.
Yep. My GF just did her taxes on her sister's Dell with Windows/turbotax and we had a devil of a time getting it to load what she had already entered in!
Man oh Man, I love my Mac's....Best Cameronj
Google has a strange business model to be sure. I am pretty sure they could have charged for their OS and still sold just as many.
Actually, it's an interesting question. While manufacturers get the OS for free, they have to pay Google for the apps that Google has for it. The estimate is that costs almost as much as what MS charges makers for the OS AND the apps.
This is why some makers replace a Google app with another.
Has MSFT ever had over $20B revenue in this same quarter? Are analysts projecting MSFT over $20B for this same quarter come 28-OCT-2010?
I think Google's revenue for this year was $28 billion. They also had a blow out quarter.
Android isn't a company.
And the company that makes it, charges zero for it. Is that a rival?
C.
That's not entirely true as I mentioned in an earlier post.
Google charges for their apps, such as Maps. Only the OS is free.
They also reported mobile advertising revenue of $1 billion, mostly gotten from Android phones.
So, yes, they are a rival.
Don't believe their BS about openness, and being worried that Apple would take over the market because that would be bad for people. It's ALL about money. Nothing else. If Apple had a majority of the Smartphone market, it would be bad for Google.
The amazing thing is that they truly believe that it goes down after every earnings report. Goes to show you what a short term memory they really have.
And for anyone comparing AAPL to MSFT in revenue, please go take a course in finance. Or compare AAPL to WMT in revenue and figure out for yourself the pointlessness of comparing AAPL to MSFT.
Comparing Apple to MS isn't meaningful financially - yet.
But it has a psychological value. MS is their greatest rival, though Google is coming up fast to rival both.
If Apple gets big enough, the MS can falter. Apple's sales take away from MS, and visa versa. If Apple can push MS out of the consumer market in phones and tablets, then they can push them out of netbooks and notebooks. Then possibly desktops as well. They can push them out of gaming.
The point is that MS may find themselves more constrained as Apple gains ascendency. That will limit their profits and sales. It could constrict them to government and enterprise sales while consumer sales may drop to less than meaningful levels. MS would shrink.
This affects all PC manufacturers of course.
So, MS and Apple can be compared, it just may not seem to be the case yet.
It is a difficult one for that and other reasons. Apple really competes with Dell, HP, HTC, Samsung etc. and none of them can hold a candle on their own to Apple's financial performance (the subject of the day).
RIM gets mentioned since they are the largest smartphone-only purveyor (Nokia sells everything) and are a good comparator for Apple. You could mention HTC or Moto but it wouldn't even be close.
Android as a platform is obviously a competitor but the evidence so far is that it is not really impacting iOS much. The high-end sales are going to Apple haters, geeks or people who can't get iPhone on their network so few actual lost sales there and the rest of the sales are cheap Androids which Apple has no interest in competing with and comes with much lower content/app sales and lower profitability to the OEM.
Android is inherently a low profitability platform for everyone (except Google) and even for Google, it is a low revenue platform - estimated at $10 per user per year currently.
Where is your evidence that Android isn't impacting iOS much? And where do you get that Google gets about $10 a year out of Android?
We do know that Google made $1 billion this quarter from mobile Ads. Most of that came from Ads on Android devices, much of the rest from on iOS devices.
We also know that they charge for Android apps, though not the OS.
They're doing well there.
And therein lies a nice (for us) parallel between this whole Google OS and 3rd party hardware and MS and the same. None of them are making enough money to compete with Apple's R&D or marketing (excepting Google and MS).
If that number were true.
And for anyone comparing AAPL to MSFT in revenue, please go take a course in finance. Or compare AAPL to WMT in revenue and figure out for yourself the pointlessness of comparing AAPL to MSFT.
They are the 2nd largest computer company in valuation, with Apple being the largest. Apple has likely just just bested them in revenue and likely to best them in profit within a year. There will also be comparisons to XOM and AAPL?s revenue and profit as Apple gets closer to Exxon?s valuation.
Based on your objection there is no company that Apple can ever be compared to.
Pretty sure they've not quite made a $20Bn quarter - Holiday quarter last year (Q2) was $19Bn. Apple has just pipped them for the year. MS made $62.5Bn for the FY ending July 2010 while Apple just did >$65Bn. MS still more profitable but unsurprising since the vast majority of their profit is from software only.
It is mind boggling that Apple can approach their profitability on largely hardware sales - it is absolutely unprecedented. Not even Nokia in its near-monopoly days could pull this.
Mind-bottling, isn't it?
Comparing Apple to MS isn't meaningful financially - yet.
But it has a psychological value. MS is their greatest rival, though Google is coming up fast to rival both.
If Apple gets big enough, the MS can falter. Apple's sales take away from MS, and visa versa. If Apple can push MS out of the consumer market in phones and tablets, then they can push them out of netbooks and notebooks. Then possibly desktops as well. They can push them out of gaming.
The point is that MS may find themselves more constrained as Apple gains ascendency. That will limit their profits and sales. It could constrict them to government and enterprise sales while consumer sales may drop to less than meaningful levels. MS would shrink.
This affects all PC manufacturers of course.
So, MS and Apple can be compared, it just may not seem to be the case yet.
And none of this has anything to do with actual revenue amounts, which is the point.
They are the 2nd largest computer company in valuation, with Apple being the largest. Apple has likely just just bested them in revenue and likely to best them in profit within a year. There will also be comparisons to XOM and AAPL?s revenue and profit as Apple gets closer to Exxon?s valuation.
Based on your objection there is no company that Apple can ever be compared to.
You're putting some words into my mouth there. Just because Apple and MS don't run similar businesses as a whole doesn't mean nobody does. I can't believe I'm even saying this, it's so obvious, but... Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they sell software. Apple sells very little software. From a financial reports perspective, they could hardly be more different. Apple fanboys get a kick out of comparing them, but no one who matters thinks about it.
Revenue projection for the next quarter is 30% more than the current quarter, but earnings projection stays pretty much the same. This points to significantly lower margin expectation for the Xmas quarter. The only explanation I can think of is that Apple plans to sell significantly more iPods in the Xmas quarter and iPods have lower margin than other Apple products...
I see iPad being the console present of Christmas.
You're putting some words into my mouth there. Just because Apple and MS don't run similar businesses as a whole doesn't mean nobody does. I can't believe I'm even saying this, it's so obvious, but... Microsoft doesn't sell hardware, they sell software. Apple sells very little software. From a financial reports perspective, they could hardly be more different. Apple fanboys get a kick out of comparing them, but no one who matters thinks about it.
So these guys don't matter?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/te...y/27apple.html
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...930598443.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...-revenue-race/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/in...pple/19563983/
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...pective-2010-5
Who here is not excited about that!
Apple always says that crap. I like their stuff, but that is no information at all. Steve gets excited about Mobile Me - which should be free, but it's $99.
And none of this has anything to do with actual revenue amounts, which is the point.
You're wrong. The bigger a company is, the more ability it has to do what it needs to do.
Do you naively think that if MS hadn't gotten big enough, and hadn't made so much in monopoly profits it would be where it is today? I hope not!
Do you think the XBox would still be around if they didn't subsidize it? It wouldn't. Same thing for the Zune, and a number of other areas such as search.
The same thing is true for Apple. Their size these days allows them to make purchases others can't match. They get better pricing, which makes their products more competitive than otherwise.
And, like it or not, MS is Apple's real competitor, not Dell or Hp, or Acer, or others.
As Apple gets bigger, it puts more pressure on MS, and it hurts their sales and earnings. to a certain extent, as Apple does better, it holds MS back from doing as well as they would. So it's a useful metric in some ways, though, as I said, it will become more so in the future.
If you don't see that, well, I hope you don't advise on investments.
Should've bought when shares were 80 bucks
Hindsight. It's only money, it wouldn't make you happy.
So these guys don't matter?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/te...y/27apple.html
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...930598443.html
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/07/...-revenue-race/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/in...pple/19563983/
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry...pective-2010-5
You got it. Commentators? Analysts? Why would they matter? All they do is try to generate content that makes dummy fanboys pay them with ad clicks or for stock tips.