Well! Not too bad. Almost $27 billion in revenue. I was thinking almost 27.5, so i wasn't off by too much.
This means that Apple, with its guidance of $22 billion next quarter could have its first $100 billion fiscal year for 2011, and pretty much definitely have one for calendar year 2011. That would beat analysts predictions of $86 to $94 billion. I'm assuming that the March quarter will show at $24 billion or so.
As that's the worst quarter for Apple, all others would be over $25 billion, and possibly by a good margin.
$60 billion in cash. They generated much more cash than I, or I think anyone thought. it means they could generate an average of $6 to $7 billion this year per quarter. What to do. What to do.
You are incorrect, if you read the financial statement the $27 bill qtr ended on Dec 25 2010, so to assume a $100 bill 2011 calendar year assume that qtr ending Dec 25th 2011 is similar to the one just ended. By the way I love Apple.
I keep thinking that other companies will look at Apple's performance and decide to change how they do business. Apple have proved that a focus on design, attention to detail and high standard of quality can sell. I have seen not a single company in any of the Apple market spaces that comes close. Nor have I seen one that seems to "get" what Apple is doing. Remember how the boys and girls at RIM didn't believe the iPhone would function as Steve demonstrated? This was the iPhone 1 for crying out loud. Then they got one and were stunned to see what was inside. It like they are members of a cargo cult and Apple is the "God" who uses advanced technology.
$60 billion in cash........ What to do. What to do.
Great question.
Simple answer. Return $55B (~$60/share) to shareholders in the form of a special dividend. Damn shareholder tax consequences. Start cash pile from scratch.
I surmise that the stock (less the obvious arithmetic effect of smaller cash balance) will zoom.
Or let's talk about CDs. I can get 2.61% on a 5 year CD. Granted, if Apple needed the money sooner, they'd lose a quarter's worth of interest, but they'd still be ahead of the game if they held on to it for at least a few months.
Something doesn't add up. There must be something in the way Apple is reporting the interest income.
Mac sales were a record 4.13 million for the quarter, with portables leading the way, accounting for $3.7 billion in revenue on sales of 2.9 million.
Desktop Macs earned Apple another $1.7 billion for the three-month period, on sales of 1.2 million.
Is my math correct: $5.4B ÷ 4.13M units = $1300 average per Mac?
Quote:
Apple's next (Q2 2011) fiscal quarter
Apple has projected revenue of about $22 billion and diluted earnings per share of about $4.90.
Anyone what they earned that quarter YoY? It could give us some insight into new product updates coming.
Quote:
The next generation of Android tablets: "There's nothing shipping yet, and so I don't know. Generally, they lack performance specs, they lack prices, they lack timing. And so today they're vapor. We'll assess them as they come out, however, we're not sitting still. And we have a huge first mover advantage...
LOL I love how Apple has come into a decade old market and have absolutely no challengers.
If you are a cell phone carrier and you need an OS to compete with the iPhone would you really trust a software company to develop the OS for it. OR would you prefer to develop it yourself?
In an ideal world of course you would prefer to have it in house - you would then not be beholden to the software company. You would have complete control of the software and be able to customize it for you own phones and not be at the mercy of said software company.
It must be rather galling to be forced to use someone else's OS for your phones. And be completely at the mercy of their development timelines and strategic objectives. As long as that OS is kept up to date and adds new fetaures on time and make sense you should be okay but still!
and to top it off that software company is giving the OS away to your nasty rivals too jeez, But again you really should have seen the iOS coming shouldn't you and not have painted yourself in this tight corner in the first place. well thats what come from gettin' complacent! Innovate or die
Agree. To elaborate further, all these handset manufacturers that turned to Android did so really out of desperation because they felt they just had to be in the smartphone space no matter what. Even though if they just turned their heads a little bit to look at the Windows PC market they'd immediately realize that as hardware manufacturers using a common platform they will be fighting tooth and nail among themselves for the few profit scraps that are left over from Apple and to some extent Blackberry. Nokia is right, turning to Android is like pissing in your pants to keep yourself warm in winter. It is in Google's interest to encourage cutthroat price competition among the Android handset mfrs because driving down the price of Android handsets can only help in growing their mobile advertising platform. What a bunch of sorry patsies these Android phone makers are. Kudos to HP for learning its Windows lesson well and choosing to acquire its own mobile OS. It might not work out in the end, but at least they buy themselves a shot at getting a decent return for their efforts as opposed to going with Android and its guarantee of subsistence profits.
One of the things that is different about the PC Mac comparison is that almost from the very beginning people were making PCs at home from parts which were readily available, as was a copy of DOS. This was not possible with Apple computers for which parts and ROMs were tightly controlled, which may have been Apple's mistake. Because of that grass roots PC following and eventually IT departments who were able to repair and trouble shoot PCs without a certified dealer's help, Microsoft based computers became widespread very quickly.
The difference now is that you can't make your own smartphone from parts and you can't make a call without a carrier. Since the iPhone is no more expensive than the alternative, Android, it is all about the best phone for the money.
There's another thing you can't do now even if you're a big company: buy many of even the standardized key parts in quantity, because Apple is locking up the supply with mass future orders. Like 10" screens in 2010 - which make you have to pretend 7" was what you really wanted in the first place. Or flash memory in 2007-8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
I wonder who they are going to buy. Got to be Nokia for all their IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted
I keep trying to envision a sensible large purchase for Apple; the only thing that I can ever come up with is Sony. But, really, Apple likely doesn't want Sony, just Sony Music Entertainment and Sony Pictures Entertainment. Not to mention that such a purchase might create problems dealing with other content providers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The problem with most big companies is that they're in businesses Apple doesn't want to be in, or that conflict with their plans and needs, or with that of other companies Apple is partners with. Usually, the bigger the company, the more this will be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke
Cook mentioned that they're investing in a particular area of technology, much like they have in processor development and flash storage, but wouldn't say what it was. I think it's likely he was talking about display technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
They'd be wise to secure the most wide-ranging collection of multi-touch and telephony patents available... Clearly the future is iPhone and iPad.
Expanding the patent portfolio makes some sense, but otherwise, like melgross and penchanted I've always found most of the speculation about Apple acquiring other high-profile companies (Adobe, Sony, Nokia, RIM, etc.) who also market to end-users tough to swallow. Clash of corporate cultures, loss of synergies, span of control issues, product lines and divisions to simply close down, etc., etc.). I also don't see how getting into the cellco (or cable) or dramatic content creation businesses really benefits them, and might even hobble them.
Netflix is frequently mentioned, but their access to the product of all the studios the do have is not secure (or so I've read), and they might lose more rights from media companies who are already leery of Apple's leverage over their businesses. A gaming company might fit in the mix somewhere, though (I never play, so whadda' I know?).
And I've always thot that convergence is going to soon involve higher quality cameras that are also everything else other Apple Mobiles are. But that might not require a camera company acquisition. Tons of companies have shown there's not much barrier to entry into the digital camera biz. Olympus, though, might be a reasonably pure play. How would you like a micro 4/3 camera with interchangeable lenses (plus other sophisticated phone-size P&S cameras) and ubiquitous internet connectivity that would send your RAW shots and 1080p video over LTE 4G to Aperture running on your iPad 3 or the successor to today's MB Airs? Where you'd have access to all your other media for editing in soundtracks and more? As well as the cameras having their own apps and other iOS 6 features. Nikon would be less tidy to swallow, but one never knows - if they're looking in that direction.
In any case, you have to think of Apple as a global company now, and thus their acquisitions are likely to made with an eye toward companies and technologies which advance them globally, not just in the US or a few countries.
Infrastructure probably makes the most immediate sense, though, i.e., PA-Semi and Intrinsity show their mindset. Apple's always liked control over their own software AND hardware, and they're in a position to gain more. So, yeah, an innovative display tech company or a maker of the type of silicon acting as MB Air drives, e.g. Or a company making, as alluded to above, key camera parts, if not a camera company. Or bleeding edge manufacturers of the other key parts in their mobile products, e.g., batteries, radios, etc. (assuming there's ways to differentiate themselves by doing so as there was with the A4, otherwise, why bother? Except to avoid supply bottlenecks - but any such company they buy is going to have to have a strong R&D effort or they'll be marginalized in time for that component line).
Other plays in the component area, though, might raise anti-trust concerns and involve behemoths, e.g., Intel or NVidia. I don't know enough about AMD's breadth, patent hand or true viability to comment on them, but the ATI properties seem to have value. Still, there are issues with any of these.
They could probably also buy as much of the companies that assemble their products as China and others will allow, but that also poses problems. Consider Foxconn (spelling?) and its workers jumping from windows (in which company or a similar one, forgive my lack of research, they may already have a stake). Apple as key stockholder would probably be under conflicting pressures from labor activists and the whole Chinese gov't-industrial establishment in terms of wages and working conditions and either shrink their own margins, be the target of political action and public relations warfare, or in time cause general inflation in China's electronics (and eventually other) industries.
And just to cover the bases, they still seemed disinclined to dive deeply into any area of enterprise computing as closing down XServe indicates.
Happy quandries to have enough cash to worry about, in any case. We shall see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
If Apple is not worried about "cannibalization" then they should have no problem selling that midrange Mac tower that people have been asking for.
You MMRM (Mythical Mid-Range Mac) guys love to keep suffering, as you keep the faint candle of hope burning, don't you? (And I know because I was one for a long time.)
Look at the sales trends - that's where Apple goes - not into static mature slow growth or declining areas. If they finally give us one, it would have to be as a gift to long-suffering Mac geeks, not a real business decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Postulant
I wonder what it feels like to have 60 billion in cash...
Probably what the Apple executive suite and board feels like: "King of the (tech) World!!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
$60 billion in cash........ What to do. What to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Great question.
Simple answer. Return $55B (~$60/share) to shareholders in the form of a special dividend. Damn shareholder tax consequences. Start cash pile from scratch.
I surmise that the stock (less the obvious arithmetic effect of smaller cash balance) will zoom.
You may know (far) more about technology and using it than I do, and you do have SOME fiscal knowledge, so no personal offense, but tell me you're not running a company I may be invested in or co-ordinating fiscal, tax or monetary policy for a government. Dear God(dess)(e)(s). Not enough storage space on AI's servers to deconstruct such economic/market/management malarkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If you look at it in comparison to movie theaters during the depression of 1929 there are similarities. In the case of movie theaters, they had just introduced sound at that time and people although hurting from the economic situation afforded themselves a single luxury of going to the movies once a week. While other businesses failed, movie theaters with sound stayed open.
Similarly Apple introduced a revolutionary advancement in cell phone technology and although we find ourselves in a similar economic condition, we afford ourselves the simple luxury of this new gadget.
History. Context. A fresh take. Yaay! (Those things are often rarer than hen's teeth around here.)
Very impressive results. However some things that struck me:
1. The iPhone has a higher average selling price than the iPad. Does it really cost more to produce or is the profit lower.
2. High sales of the iPods doesn't actually achieve much in revenue compared to the iPhone.
3. Almost 40% of the revenue comes from the iPhone.
I would like to see how much profit each product actually brings in because if the iPhone has the highest profit margin then it's possible half the company's profit is just from one product. If it were to go out of fashion (and at some point everything does), that would put a huge dent in the value of AAPL.
LOL I love how Apple has come into a decade old market and have absolutely no challengers.
The reason for this I think is that the other companies in the tech sector are only now finally managing to skid to a halt in the directions they were going. The inertia must have been horrific. Now they have to totally alter course (being the bunch of creative and original folks they all seem to be) and reverse engineer everything Apple does then get a production line going. All the meanwhile spouting about vaporware to try to appease stock holders and stave of defections in their user base. The snag is the technologies and worse perhaps the components are not there!
Only Google was able to have an inside track on the change of direction and we all know why! Imagine where AAPL would be now had Apple's board been differently configured!
The problem with most big companies is that they're in businesses Apple doesn't want to be in, or that conflict with their plans and needs, or with that of other companies Apple is partners with. Usually, the bigger the company, the more this will be true.
I think Apple wants to be in a strong bargaining position for IP/innovative companies it really wants - especially with both Microsoft and Google out trying to hoard as many smaller firms as they can to reinforce their own IP or prevent the others from getting it. Both of these firms recognize Apple's buying power, and it seems like Apple goes after one firm - or seems to, and then turns around and buys another once they get Google focussed on and trying to outbid them.
One of the things that is different about the PC Mac comparison is that almost from the very beginning people were making PCs at home from parts which were readily available, as was a copy of DOS. This was not possible with Apple computers for which parts and ROMs were tightly controlled, which may have been Apple's mistake. Because of that grass roots PC following and eventually IT departments who were able to repair and trouble shoot PCs without a certified dealer's help, Microsoft based computers became widespread very quickly.
The difference now is that you can't make your own smartphone from parts and you can't make a call without a carrier. Since the iPhone is no more expensive than the alternative, Android, it is all about the best phone for the money.
MediaTek is one those companies which is trying to do a white box model and is eventually sweeping out the low cost market where Nokia prevails.
As, you pointed out the smartphone cannot exist on it's own it needs a regulatory clearances, Mobile Identifier numbers etc .., for basic functioning & will make it always tied to the vendor.
Simple answer. Return $55B (~$60/share) to shareholders in the form of a special dividend. Damn shareholder tax consequences. Start cash pile from scratch.
I surmise that the stock (less the obvious arithmetic effect of smaller cash balance) will zoom.
You're confused. The cash is included in the share price. If Apple distributed most of that to shareholders (say $55 B as you suggest), then the share price would drop by that amount - not zoom.
Given their results for the past 10 years, I'd say that Apple probably has a better idea what to do with that cash than some anonymous poster on AI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Cash is post-tax, FYI. (Although, not necessarily US).
You're confused. The cash is included in the share price. If Apple distributed most of that to shareholders (say $55 B as you suggest), then the share price would drop by that amount - not zoom.
Given their results for the past 10 years, I'd say that Apple probably has a better idea what to do with that cash than some anonymous poster on AI.
The cash is not included in the share price. It is at most an abstraction attached to the value of the company, but is not otherwise reflected in the price of the shares. By the same token, debt is not subtracted from a company's share price, but may come into consideration in valuing the company if debt service becomes a major financial issue.
Quote:
Yes, but dividends are taxable to the recipient.
I once knew a person who refused a promotion because they didn't want to pay higher taxes. I will leave you to ponder the logic.
I once knew a person who refused a promotion because they didn't want to pay higher taxes. I will leave you to ponder the logic.
I?ve experienced a similar thing. Received a raise that put me into a higher tax bracket that ended up netting me less profit than before the pay increase.
I?ve experienced a similar thing. Received a raise that put me into a higher tax bracket that ended up netting me less profit than before the pay increase.
Marginal tax rates working as they do, I don't know how that's possible.
Comments
Well! Not too bad. Almost $27 billion in revenue. I was thinking almost 27.5, so i wasn't off by too much.
This means that Apple, with its guidance of $22 billion next quarter could have its first $100 billion fiscal year for 2011, and pretty much definitely have one for calendar year 2011. That would beat analysts predictions of $86 to $94 billion. I'm assuming that the March quarter will show at $24 billion or so.
As that's the worst quarter for Apple, all others would be over $25 billion, and possibly by a good margin.
$60 billion in cash. They generated much more cash than I, or I think anyone thought. it means they could generate an average of $6 to $7 billion this year per quarter. What to do. What to do.
You are incorrect, if you read the financial statement the $27 bill qtr ended on Dec 25 2010, so to assume a $100 bill 2011 calendar year assume that qtr ending Dec 25th 2011 is similar to the one just ended. By the way I love Apple.
The same tired article?
Do you guys have problems understanding these articles? It very clearly says this in the very beginning;
So, who should apologize?
Do you guys have problems understanding these articles.
How come you can make this nasty comment and not be flagged ?
Why / Because I wrote a post about daharder, the AI moderators are too gutless to kick him off, he posts nasty obnoxious stuff, yet is immune.
I post once and have been warned, go figger.
I guess melgross (moderator) will expunge this post so you won't get the chance to read it, wonderful thing censorship.
EDIT:
I'll let this absurd post stand as it is so allow others to shake their heads over it.
Just wow.
$60 billion in cash........ What to do. What to do.
Great question.
Simple answer. Return $55B (~$60/share) to shareholders in the form of a special dividend. Damn shareholder tax consequences. Start cash pile from scratch.
I surmise that the stock (less the obvious arithmetic effect of smaller cash balance) will zoom.
Why would a bank pay 3% interest to Apple when they can borrow money from the Federal Reserve at .25%? I'm surprised Apple gets 1%.
That's just plain foolish.
I can get 1.3% myself with Amex. Or 1.43% with Upromise. Or 1.75% with a couple of online banks:
http://www.bromoney.com/savings-account-interest-rates
You don't think Apple could do better?
Or let's talk about CDs. I can get 2.61% on a 5 year CD. Granted, if Apple needed the money sooner, they'd lose a quarter's worth of interest, but they'd still be ahead of the game if they held on to it for at least a few months.
Something doesn't add up. There must be something in the way Apple is reporting the interest income.
Feels pretty good actually. Taxes are a bitch though.
Cash is post-tax, FYI. (Although, not necessarily US).
Apple's Mac business
Mac sales were a record 4.13 million for the quarter, with portables leading the way, accounting for $3.7 billion in revenue on sales of 2.9 million.
Desktop Macs earned Apple another $1.7 billion for the three-month period, on sales of 1.2 million.
Is my math correct: $5.4B ÷ 4.13M units = $1300 average per Mac?
Apple's next (Q2 2011) fiscal quarter
Apple has projected revenue of about $22 billion and diluted earnings per share of about $4.90.
Anyone what they earned that quarter YoY? It could give us some insight into new product updates coming.
The next generation of Android tablets: "There's nothing shipping yet, and so I don't know. Generally, they lack performance specs, they lack prices, they lack timing. And so today they're vapor. We'll assess them as they come out, however, we're not sitting still. And we have a huge first mover advantage...
LOL I love how Apple has come into a decade old market and have absolutely no challengers.
If you are a cell phone carrier and you need an OS to compete with the iPhone would you really trust a software company to develop the OS for it. OR would you prefer to develop it yourself?
In an ideal world of course you would prefer to have it in house - you would then not be beholden to the software company. You would have complete control of the software and be able to customize it for you own phones and not be at the mercy of said software company.
It must be rather galling to be forced to use someone else's OS for your phones. And be completely at the mercy of their development timelines and strategic objectives. As long as that OS is kept up to date and adds new fetaures on time and make sense you should be okay but still!
and to top it off that software company is giving the OS away to your nasty rivals too jeez, But again you really should have seen the iOS coming shouldn't you and not have painted yourself in this tight corner in the first place. well thats what come from gettin' complacent! Innovate or die
Agree. To elaborate further, all these handset manufacturers that turned to Android did so really out of desperation because they felt they just had to be in the smartphone space no matter what. Even though if they just turned their heads a little bit to look at the Windows PC market they'd immediately realize that as hardware manufacturers using a common platform they will be fighting tooth and nail among themselves for the few profit scraps that are left over from Apple and to some extent Blackberry. Nokia is right, turning to Android is like pissing in your pants to keep yourself warm in winter. It is in Google's interest to encourage cutthroat price competition among the Android handset mfrs because driving down the price of Android handsets can only help in growing their mobile advertising platform. What a bunch of sorry patsies these Android phone makers are. Kudos to HP for learning its Windows lesson well and choosing to acquire its own mobile OS. It might not work out in the end, but at least they buy themselves a shot at getting a decent return for their efforts as opposed to going with Android and its guarantee of subsistence profits.
One of the things that is different about the PC Mac comparison is that almost from the very beginning people were making PCs at home from parts which were readily available, as was a copy of DOS. This was not possible with Apple computers for which parts and ROMs were tightly controlled, which may have been Apple's mistake. Because of that grass roots PC following and eventually IT departments who were able to repair and trouble shoot PCs without a certified dealer's help, Microsoft based computers became widespread very quickly.
The difference now is that you can't make your own smartphone from parts and you can't make a call without a carrier. Since the iPhone is no more expensive than the alternative, Android, it is all about the best phone for the money.
There's another thing you can't do now even if you're a big company: buy many of even the standardized key parts in quantity, because Apple is locking up the supply with mass future orders. Like 10" screens in 2010 - which make you have to pretend 7" was what you really wanted in the first place. Or flash memory in 2007-8.
I wonder who they are going to buy. Got to be Nokia for all their IP.
I keep trying to envision a sensible large purchase for Apple; the only thing that I can ever come up with is Sony. But, really, Apple likely doesn't want Sony, just Sony Music Entertainment and Sony Pictures Entertainment. Not to mention that such a purchase might create problems dealing with other content providers.
The problem with most big companies is that they're in businesses Apple doesn't want to be in, or that conflict with their plans and needs, or with that of other companies Apple is partners with. Usually, the bigger the company, the more this will be true.
Cook mentioned that they're investing in a particular area of technology, much like they have in processor development and flash storage, but wouldn't say what it was. I think it's likely he was talking about display technology.
They'd be wise to secure the most wide-ranging collection of multi-touch and telephony patents available... Clearly the future is iPhone and iPad.
Expanding the patent portfolio makes some sense, but otherwise, like melgross and penchanted I've always found most of the speculation about Apple acquiring other high-profile companies (Adobe, Sony, Nokia, RIM, etc.) who also market to end-users tough to swallow. Clash of corporate cultures, loss of synergies, span of control issues, product lines and divisions to simply close down, etc., etc.). I also don't see how getting into the cellco (or cable) or dramatic content creation businesses really benefits them, and might even hobble them.
Netflix is frequently mentioned, but their access to the product of all the studios the do have is not secure (or so I've read), and they might lose more rights from media companies who are already leery of Apple's leverage over their businesses. A gaming company might fit in the mix somewhere, though (I never play, so whadda' I know?).
And I've always thot that convergence is going to soon involve higher quality cameras that are also everything else other Apple Mobiles are. But that might not require a camera company acquisition. Tons of companies have shown there's not much barrier to entry into the digital camera biz. Olympus, though, might be a reasonably pure play. How would you like a micro 4/3 camera with interchangeable lenses (plus other sophisticated phone-size P&S cameras) and ubiquitous internet connectivity that would send your RAW shots and 1080p video over LTE 4G to Aperture running on your iPad 3 or the successor to today's MB Airs? Where you'd have access to all your other media for editing in soundtracks and more? As well as the cameras having their own apps and other iOS 6 features. Nikon would be less tidy to swallow, but one never knows - if they're looking in that direction.
In any case, you have to think of Apple as a global company now, and thus their acquisitions are likely to made with an eye toward companies and technologies which advance them globally, not just in the US or a few countries.
Infrastructure probably makes the most immediate sense, though, i.e., PA-Semi and Intrinsity show their mindset. Apple's always liked control over their own software AND hardware, and they're in a position to gain more. So, yeah, an innovative display tech company or a maker of the type of silicon acting as MB Air drives, e.g. Or a company making, as alluded to above, key camera parts, if not a camera company. Or bleeding edge manufacturers of the other key parts in their mobile products, e.g., batteries, radios, etc. (assuming there's ways to differentiate themselves by doing so as there was with the A4, otherwise, why bother? Except to avoid supply bottlenecks - but any such company they buy is going to have to have a strong R&D effort or they'll be marginalized in time for that component line).
Other plays in the component area, though, might raise anti-trust concerns and involve behemoths, e.g., Intel or NVidia. I don't know enough about AMD's breadth, patent hand or true viability to comment on them, but the ATI properties seem to have value. Still, there are issues with any of these.
They could probably also buy as much of the companies that assemble their products as China and others will allow, but that also poses problems. Consider Foxconn (spelling?) and its workers jumping from windows (in which company or a similar one, forgive my lack of research, they may already have a stake). Apple as key stockholder would probably be under conflicting pressures from labor activists and the whole Chinese gov't-industrial establishment in terms of wages and working conditions and either shrink their own margins, be the target of political action and public relations warfare, or in time cause general inflation in China's electronics (and eventually other) industries.
And just to cover the bases, they still seemed disinclined to dive deeply into any area of enterprise computing as closing down XServe indicates.
Happy quandries to have enough cash to worry about, in any case. We shall see.
If Apple is not worried about "cannibalization" then they should have no problem selling that midrange Mac tower that people have been asking for.
You MMRM (Mythical Mid-Range Mac) guys love to keep suffering, as you keep the faint candle of hope burning, don't you? (And I know because I was one for a long time.)
Look at the sales trends - that's where Apple goes - not into static mature slow growth or declining areas. If they finally give us one, it would have to be as a gift to long-suffering Mac geeks, not a real business decision.
I wonder what it feels like to have 60 billion in cash...
Probably what the Apple executive suite and board feels like: "King of the (tech) World!!"
Originally Posted by melgross
$60 billion in cash........ What to do. What to do.
Great question.
Simple answer. Return $55B (~$60/share) to shareholders in the form of a special dividend. Damn shareholder tax consequences. Start cash pile from scratch.
I surmise that the stock (less the obvious arithmetic effect of smaller cash balance) will zoom.
You may know (far) more about technology and using it than I do, and you do have SOME fiscal knowledge, so no personal offense, but tell me you're not running a company I may be invested in or co-ordinating fiscal, tax or monetary policy for a government. Dear God(dess)(e)(s). Not enough storage space on AI's servers to deconstruct such economic/market/management malarkey.
If you look at it in comparison to movie theaters during the depression of 1929 there are similarities. In the case of movie theaters, they had just introduced sound at that time and people although hurting from the economic situation afforded themselves a single luxury of going to the movies once a week. While other businesses failed, movie theaters with sound stayed open.
Similarly Apple introduced a revolutionary advancement in cell phone technology and although we find ourselves in a similar economic condition, we afford ourselves the simple luxury of this new gadget.
History. Context. A fresh take. Yaay! (Those things are often rarer than hen's teeth around here.)
anyone what they earned that quarter yoy?
In billion $
1/09 11.880 2.255
2/09 9.084 1.620
3/09 9.734 1.828
4/09 12.207 2.532
1/10 15.683 3.378
2/10 13.499 3.074
3/10 15.700 3.253
4/10 20.343 4.308
1/11 26.741 6.004
About half of Macs sold were to customers who never owned a Mac before.
This is the most important piece of information in this article.
1. The iPhone has a higher average selling price than the iPad. Does it really cost more to produce or is the profit lower.
2. High sales of the iPods doesn't actually achieve much in revenue compared to the iPhone.
3. Almost 40% of the revenue comes from the iPhone.
I would like to see how much profit each product actually brings in because if the iPhone has the highest profit margin then it's possible half the company's profit is just from one product. If it were to go out of fashion (and at some point everything does), that would put a huge dent in the value of AAPL.
LOL I love how Apple has come into a decade old market and have absolutely no challengers.
The reason for this I think is that the other companies in the tech sector are only now finally managing to skid to a halt in the directions they were going. The inertia must have been horrific. Now they have to totally alter course (being the bunch of creative and original folks they all seem to be) and reverse engineer everything Apple does then get a production line going. All the meanwhile spouting about vaporware to try to appease stock holders and stave of defections in their user base. The snag is the technologies and worse perhaps the components are not there!
Only Google was able to have an inside track on the change of direction and we all know why! Imagine where AAPL would be now had Apple's board been differently configured!
The problem with most big companies is that they're in businesses Apple doesn't want to be in, or that conflict with their plans and needs, or with that of other companies Apple is partners with. Usually, the bigger the company, the more this will be true.
I think Apple wants to be in a strong bargaining position for IP/innovative companies it really wants - especially with both Microsoft and Google out trying to hoard as many smaller firms as they can to reinforce their own IP or prevent the others from getting it. Both of these firms recognize Apple's buying power, and it seems like Apple goes after one firm - or seems to, and then turns around and buys another once they get Google focussed on and trying to outbid them.
One of the things that is different about the PC Mac comparison is that almost from the very beginning people were making PCs at home from parts which were readily available, as was a copy of DOS. This was not possible with Apple computers for which parts and ROMs were tightly controlled, which may have been Apple's mistake. Because of that grass roots PC following and eventually IT departments who were able to repair and trouble shoot PCs without a certified dealer's help, Microsoft based computers became widespread very quickly.
The difference now is that you can't make your own smartphone from parts and you can't make a call without a carrier. Since the iPhone is no more expensive than the alternative, Android, it is all about the best phone for the money.
MediaTek is one those companies which is trying to do a white box model and is eventually sweeping out the low cost market where Nokia prevails.
As, you pointed out the smartphone cannot exist on it's own it needs a regulatory clearances, Mobile Identifier numbers etc .., for basic functioning & will make it always tied to the vendor.
Great question.
Simple answer. Return $55B (~$60/share) to shareholders in the form of a special dividend. Damn shareholder tax consequences. Start cash pile from scratch.
I surmise that the stock (less the obvious arithmetic effect of smaller cash balance) will zoom.
You're confused. The cash is included in the share price. If Apple distributed most of that to shareholders (say $55 B as you suggest), then the share price would drop by that amount - not zoom.
Given their results for the past 10 years, I'd say that Apple probably has a better idea what to do with that cash than some anonymous poster on AI.
Cash is post-tax, FYI. (Although, not necessarily US).
Yes, but dividends are taxable to the recipient.
You're confused. The cash is included in the share price. If Apple distributed most of that to shareholders (say $55 B as you suggest), then the share price would drop by that amount - not zoom.
Given their results for the past 10 years, I'd say that Apple probably has a better idea what to do with that cash than some anonymous poster on AI.
The cash is not included in the share price. It is at most an abstraction attached to the value of the company, but is not otherwise reflected in the price of the shares. By the same token, debt is not subtracted from a company's share price, but may come into consideration in valuing the company if debt service becomes a major financial issue.
Yes, but dividends are taxable to the recipient.
I once knew a person who refused a promotion because they didn't want to pay higher taxes. I will leave you to ponder the logic.
I once knew a person who refused a promotion because they didn't want to pay higher taxes. I will leave you to ponder the logic.
I?ve experienced a similar thing. Received a raise that put me into a higher tax bracket that ended up netting me less profit than before the pay increase.
I?ve experienced a similar thing. Received a raise that put me into a higher tax bracket that ended up netting me less profit than before the pay increase.
Marginal tax rates working as they do, I don't know how that's possible.