Just curious. Are there private companies who make more profit than Apple?
Not sure about any private companies. There is, however, a state-owned company that has humongous profits: Saudi Aramco. My guess is that their profits must be at least $100B currently.
PC's are a dying market???? Where on earth did this come from. Trucks vs cars, yes... Dying??? no.
Yes Apple computers cost less than the cheapest pc stuff.... So what. A great car cost more than an econo box. Your point is???
What is this relentless push for market share?? Lets lose money so we can have bragging rights. I see how well market share has done for HP and DELL. Yep, they are doing great today. Buy your Dell yet??
I have a six year old iBook that is still running great. Apple products just work better and longer. Just a thought.
I don't think he meant that PC sales would totally dry up. But the PC market is certainly going to shrink. It may shrink a lot over the next several years. Eventually, it may shrink so much that many PC vendors may stop making them.
"Apple's 2012 profits forecast to be highest of any public company ever"
And the lowest in charitable giving - ever...
Bullcrap! Apple has never made their charitable giving a public boast. "Giving in secret" is the highest order of giving. Also by instituting corp matching donations, Apple is amplifying the effects of their employee's donations.
The reason I ask is because I thought that such integration was obvious. Apple appears to be able to convince companies to partner with them in ways that are often manifest only in retrospect. In this instance; however, the integration seemed apparent due to companies desiring to benefit from the "reality distortion field." Considering the massive capital and effort Apple has expended on Siri and iCloud expansion of the Apple ecosystem to non-traditional (for Apple) markets.
They've been partnering with them by making it easy to connect an iPod, iPhone or iPad. But to actually put a button, connected electrically to a third party device in this way, is unheard of.
Auto makers aren't going to add a bunch of these buttons, one for Win Phone, one for Android, etc, the way they are doing for Apple. That means this will preclude other manufacturers from getting a spot. Unless, that is, this button can be used for something other than an Apple product. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that it can. That's why this is so major an announcement.
I don't think he meant that PC sales would totally dry up. But the PC market is certainly going to shrink. It may shrink a lot over the next several years. Eventually, it may shrink so much that many PC vendors may stop making them.
I agree. But in Apple's case, their iOS devices are terrific 'gateway' products for people to check out the rest of the hardware ecosystem, i.e., Macs.
I don't believe for one moment that any car company will put a "Siri Button" on their steering wheels. Why would they limit themselves like that. A number of them have already come out and questioned Apples' statement.
It will be a generic button that you can pair with your iPhone or any other compatible smart phone.
The car companies make a lot of money from optional extras such as SatNav, etc - they are no going to give that money away to Apple.
Can you link to the "questioned" statements you say you've read? I haven't seen any.
Not sure about any private companies. There is, however, a state-owned company that has humongous profits: Saudi Aramco. My guess is that their profits must be at least $100B currently.
Note: Fixed typos.
I don't think so. Their revenues are considerably less than half of Exxon's ($185 B vs $485 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil
Exxon's net income was $41 B - or roughly 8% of revenues. Saudi Aramco would have to have net income of 60% of revenues to reach $100 B. That just doesn't seem likely.
I guess you (and the original poster) don't understand that: (i) Nominal cash flows discounted at the nominal discount rate produces the same value as real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) cash flows discounted at the real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) discount rate. (ii) The P/E ratio is an inflation-independent metric, i.e., there is no need to adjust P/E ratios for inflation in order to be able to compare it across time; in other words, it is perfectly valid to say that "MSFT in 20XX had a P/E ratio of 80x which implies a substantially higher valuation than Apple's 11x in 2012."
You're confusing two very different things, as was the original poster: market value is simply market value; what you can consume with it may be less than before, but then you're measuring something else altogether.
Where in the original article did they use discounted cash flows? Hint: they didn't. I don't care if they use discounted figures or inflation adjusted figures since you get roughly the same result. The point is that you can't compare a past market cap (or revenues or profit dollars) to current ones without an adjustment for inflation.
You certainly could compare PE ratios - but that's not what was being compared. Nor is it valid to compare PE ratios when the discussion is about "which company has the greater market cap".
They've been partnering with them by making it easy to connect an iPod, iPhone or iPad. But to actually put a button, connected electrically to a third party device in this way, is unheard of.
Auto makers aren't going to add a bunch of these buttons, one for Win Phone, one for Android, etc, the way they are doing for Apple. That means this will preclude other manufacturers from getting a spot. Unless, that is, this button can be used for something other than an Apple product. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that it can. That's why this is so major an announcement.
Can you link to the "questioned" statements you say you've read? I haven't seen any.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
From two of my posts in this thread earlier today:
No particular reason the "Eyes Free" feature can't be universal plug-n-play. "Eyes Free" is the likely reasoning (along with the European common External Power Supply (EPS) rule) behind the supposed new dock connector for the new iPhone (assuming the rumors are true).
and
Courtesy of Car and Driver posted June 18, 2012 at 12:47pm by Austin Lindberg
"... Apple’s new Eyes Free Siri integration, which will be a part of the iOS 6 software update, has generated quite a buzz since its announcement last week. Part of this is due to the limited amount of information that Apple and its partner manufacturers have provided. Basically, the new feature will allow users to access the iPhone’s personal assistant, Siri, via a voice-command button, and pass your voice from the car’s built-in microphone to the phone. Although Apple mentioned a list of nine automakers it’s working with to implement Eyes Free, few have had much to say about the announcement past generic enthusiasm. Fewer still have been forthcoming with details about how Eyes Free will be utilized or when compatible vehicles will be available. We spoke with engineers from Chevrolet and Mercedes-Benz to find out how Eyes Free will work in their vehicles.
It’s important to first point out that Siri is a software change, both for the car and the phone, and not one that affects hardware—existing voice-command buttons will be used to access the system through a Bluetooth connection. According to an engineer we spoke to, Apple’s software development includes a refinement in how Siri deals with high amounts of background noise—the in-car’s single mic can pick up road, wind, and engine noise that makes it difficult for Siri to comprehend commands. (In normal use, iPhones have a pair of built-in microphones with noise cancellation that are bypassed by the in-car mic during hands-free operation.) Apple has somehow solved the problem with the iOS6 changes that go along with Eyes Free.
Once the car and phone are running the correct software and paired over Bluetooth, the actual hardware interaction is fairly simple: The driver presses the voice-command button—usually located on the steering wheel to allow for “eyes-free” operation—and receives the normal Siri prompt over the car’s stereo speakers. The button press will have to be different from the normal momentary tap that brings up control of built-in systems such as navigation. To differentiate between the two types of requests, Chevy will use a press-and-hold (about a second or two) to access Siri; Mercedes has yet to determine the key combo its system will require. Other options we can foresee include a double tap, or maybe spelling Siri’s name with Morse code..."
Apple poised to post highest profit and revenue ever thanks to the perfect storm. As we see Apple has just released new hardware with more to follow, the New Ihone 5 coming this fall, a possible new TV or Ipanel, new operating systems for mobile and land............lets face it, it doesn't get any better than this. (I forgot to mention Apples upcoming deal with China Mobile)
My question is what does Apple do for an encore.
Steve Ballmer would give up his Monkey dance to know the answer to that question.
Apple's entry into the music player business was greeted with scoff, as they came in late with a more expensive product. Ballmer howled with laughter when he heard Apple was entering the phone market with a high-priced phone... a market MS had been in for years. The tablet market could never gain market traction until Apple came out with their iPad. THEN, Apple refused to sit still and has annually improved their products in incremental steps, keeping the competition slightly off balance. Apple has "first mover advantage" and have kept the pressure up to hold that position. In chess, that's called the initiative and shows which player is running the game. By not telegraphing their next move, Apple's competitors cannot anticipate or prepare for the next big thing.
From the perspective of a [former] business owner selling Apple products.
What you say has a greater advantage than only the profit $.
You and your $100 customer have a $50 relationship -- that is understood and appreciated by each party.
Your competitor has a $10 relationship, each, with 5 parties -- understood by each, for what it is worth.
You are selling solutions, relationships, repeat business, reference sales...
Your competitor is selling price.
In addition to all of the above, the business owner and the manufacturer have fewer but profitable customers to support, which lowers your operating costs.
One profitable customer vs. six customers, as in the above example. Besides, everyone knows that if it has power cords or tits, you're gonna have problems to resolve. :-)
Apple poised to post highest profit and revenue ever thanks to the perfect storm. As we see Apple has just released new hardware with more to follow, the New Ihone 5 coming this fall, a possible new TV or Ipanel, new operating systems for mobile and land............lets face it, it doesn't get any better than this. (I forgot to mention Apples upcoming deal with China Mobile)
My question is what does Apple do for an encore.
iTV, followed by iCar, and then, the pièce de Resistance: I, Robot!
I repeat my yearly prediction: the first non-living co-respondent in a divorce proceeding will be an Apple FemBot!!!
The wild card in the deck, unseen in this negative view, is the next phase of the portable computer revolution, which is just getting started. I'm not going to say what it is because you don't deserve to know. Even if you were told, you wouldn't understand.
The main point is that there is no bubble this time. We are seeing a new industry establishing right before our eyes—if they're open, that is.
No doubt you're so clever you can see into the future from that high horse you're sitting on.
Exxon's net income was $41 B - or roughly 8% of revenues. Saudi Aramco would have to have net income of 60% of revenues to reach $100 B. That just doesn't seem likely.
Exxon pumps about 2.5M bpd, while Saudi pumps ~7.5M (you can find this info very easily on the web; the 7.5M number is probably an underestimate for Saudi). The correct metric to use to infer revenues from bpd is to look at the "revenue equivalent" from production of oil, natural gas and other products. If we use Exxon's multiples (as you did), Saudi's revenue must be closer to $1.4 trillion, or something in that range. 8% of that is over $100B.
It is commonly acknowledged that Saudi Aramco is the largest oil and gas producer in the world (although, they may have been eclipsed by PetroChina, hard to tell).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Where in the original article did they use discounted cash flows? Hint: they didn't. I don't care if they use discounted figures or inflation adjusted figures since you get roughly the same result. The point is that you can't compare a past market cap (or revenues or profit dollars) to current ones without an adjustment for inflation.
You certainly could compare PE ratios - but that's not what was being compared. Nor is it valid to compare PE ratios when the discussion is about "which company has the greater market cap".
Every valuation is implicitly or explicitly a DCF valuation. If it is not explicitly a DCF valuation it's likely a relative valuation based on multiples (i.e., EPS*[P/E], which is an implicit DCF valuation). In either event, my two points about valuations being independent of inflation are right -- i.e., the point about nominal cash flows discounted at the nominal discount rate being the same as valuations based on real -- i.e., inflation-adjusted -- cash flows discounted at the real discount rate numbers for both, and the point about P/E ratios being independent of inflation.
Moreover, we could argue that the real price of most tech products had fallen over time relative to functionality offered, i.e., there has been negative inflation in this business.
Independently of all that, there is no law against looking at inflation-adjusted valuations. The question is, what does it mean, if anything at all.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jj.yuan
Just curious. Are there private companies who make more profit than Apple?
Not sure about any private companies. There is, however, a state-owned company that has humongous profits: Saudi Aramco. My guess is that their profits must be at least $100B currently.
Note: Fixed typos.
Ha! Thanks for the warning, will gladly comply. But I think you made this up.
I don't think he meant that PC sales would totally dry up. But the PC market is certainly going to shrink. It may shrink a lot over the next several years. Eventually, it may shrink so much that many PC vendors may stop making them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxoM3
"Apple's 2012 profits forecast to be highest of any public company ever"
And the lowest in charitable giving - ever...
Bullcrap! Apple has never made their charitable giving a public boast. "Giving in secret" is the highest order of giving. Also by instituting corp matching donations, Apple is amplifying the effects of their employee's donations.
The future club has no potential...
...there's no hope for Esperanza, and I have no faith in Fidel.
They've been partnering with them by making it easy to connect an iPod, iPhone or iPad. But to actually put a button, connected electrically to a third party device in this way, is unheard of.
Auto makers aren't going to add a bunch of these buttons, one for Win Phone, one for Android, etc, the way they are doing for Apple. That means this will preclude other manufacturers from getting a spot. Unless, that is, this button can be used for something other than an Apple product. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that it can. That's why this is so major an announcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't think he meant that PC sales would totally dry up. But the PC market is certainly going to shrink. It may shrink a lot over the next several years. Eventually, it may shrink so much that many PC vendors may stop making them.
I agree. But in Apple's case, their iOS devices are terrific 'gateway' products for people to check out the rest of the hardware ecosystem, i.e., Macs.
Can you link to the "questioned" statements you say you've read? I haven't seen any.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
I don't think so. Their revenues are considerably less than half of Exxon's ($185 B vs $485
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil
Exxon's net income was $41 B - or roughly 8% of revenues. Saudi Aramco would have to have net income of 60% of revenues to reach $100 B. That just doesn't seem likely.
Where in the original article did they use discounted cash flows? Hint: they didn't. I don't care if they use discounted figures or inflation adjusted figures since you get roughly the same result. The point is that you can't compare a past market cap (or revenues or profit dollars) to current ones without an adjustment for inflation.
You certainly could compare PE ratios - but that's not what was being compared. Nor is it valid to compare PE ratios when the discussion is about "which company has the greater market cap".
From two of my posts in this thread earlier today:
No particular reason the "Eyes Free" feature can't be universal plug-n-play. "Eyes Free" is the likely reasoning (along with the European common External Power Supply (EPS) rule) behind the supposed new dock connector for the new iPhone (assuming the rumors are true).
and
Courtesy of Car and Driver posted June 18, 2012 at 12:47pm by Austin Lindberg
"... Apple’s new Eyes Free Siri integration, which will be a part of the iOS 6 software update, has generated quite a buzz since its announcement last week. Part of this is due to the limited amount of information that Apple and its partner manufacturers have provided. Basically, the new feature will allow users to access the iPhone’s personal assistant, Siri, via a voice-command button, and pass your voice from the car’s built-in microphone to the phone. Although Apple mentioned a list of nine automakers it’s working with to implement Eyes Free, few have had much to say about the announcement past generic enthusiasm. Fewer still have been forthcoming with details about how Eyes Free will be utilized or when compatible vehicles will be available. We spoke with engineers from Chevrolet and Mercedes-Benz to find out how Eyes Free will work in their vehicles.
It’s important to first point out that Siri is a software change, both for the car and the phone, and not one that affects hardware—existing voice-command buttons will be used to access the system through a Bluetooth connection. According to an engineer we spoke to, Apple’s software development includes a refinement in how Siri deals with high amounts of background noise—the in-car’s single mic can pick up road, wind, and engine noise that makes it difficult for Siri to comprehend commands. (In normal use, iPhones have a pair of built-in microphones with noise cancellation that are bypassed by the in-car mic during hands-free operation.) Apple has somehow solved the problem with the iOS6 changes that go along with Eyes Free.
Once the car and phone are running the correct software and paired over Bluetooth, the actual hardware interaction is fairly simple: The driver presses the voice-command button—usually located on the steering wheel to allow for “eyes-free” operation—and receives the normal Siri prompt over the car’s stereo speakers. The button press will have to be different from the normal momentary tap that brings up control of built-in systems such as navigation. To differentiate between the two types of requests, Chevy will use a press-and-hold (about a second or two) to access Siri; Mercedes has yet to determine the key combo its system will require. Other options we can foresee include a double tap, or maybe spelling Siri’s name with Morse code..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4
Apple poised to post highest profit and revenue ever thanks to the perfect storm. As we see Apple has just released new hardware with more to follow, the New Ihone 5 coming this fall, a possible new TV or Ipanel, new operating systems for mobile and land............lets face it, it doesn't get any better than this. (I forgot to mention Apples upcoming deal with China Mobile)
My question is what does Apple do for an encore.
Steve Ballmer would give up his Monkey dance to know the answer to that question.
Apple's entry into the music player business was greeted with scoff, as they came in late with a more expensive product. Ballmer howled with laughter when he heard Apple was entering the phone market with a high-priced phone... a market MS had been in for years. The tablet market could never gain market traction until Apple came out with their iPad. THEN, Apple refused to sit still and has annually improved their products in incremental steps, keeping the competition slightly off balance. Apple has "first mover advantage" and have kept the pressure up to hold that position. In chess, that's called the initiative and shows which player is running the game. By not telegraphing their next move, Apple's competitors cannot anticipate or prepare for the next big thing.
The answer is simple:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
From the perspective of a [former] business owner selling Apple products.
What you say has a greater advantage than only the profit $.
You and your $100 customer have a $50 relationship -- that is understood and appreciated by each party.
Your competitor has a $10 relationship, each, with 5 parties -- understood by each, for what it is worth.
You are selling solutions, relationships, repeat business, reference sales...
Your competitor is selling price.
In addition to all of the above, the business owner and the manufacturer have fewer but profitable customers to support, which lowers your operating costs.
One profitable customer vs. six customers, as in the above example. Besides, everyone knows that if it has power cords or tits, you're gonna have problems to resolve. :-)
Now YOU are close to giving it away. See what I mean?
. . . and no charity for . . . Caridad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4
Apple poised to post highest profit and revenue ever thanks to the perfect storm. As we see Apple has just released new hardware with more to follow, the New Ihone 5 coming this fall, a possible new TV or Ipanel, new operating systems for mobile and land............lets face it, it doesn't get any better than this. (I forgot to mention Apples upcoming deal with China Mobile)
My question is what does Apple do for an encore.
iTV, followed by iCar, and then, the pièce de Resistance: I, Robot!
I repeat my yearly prediction: the first non-living co-respondent in a divorce proceeding will be an Apple FemBot!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Can you link to the "questioned" statements you say you've read? I haven't seen any.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
http://www.businessinsider.com/apparently-no-one-told-chrysler-that-its-supposed-to-build-siri-into-its-cars-2012-6
http://www.fastcompany.com/1840149/driving-miss-siri-inside-apple-iphone-integration-with-mercedes-benz-bmw-general-motors?partner=gnews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
The wild card in the deck, unseen in this negative view, is the next phase of the portable computer revolution, which is just getting started. I'm not going to say what it is because you don't deserve to know. Even if you were told, you wouldn't understand.
The main point is that there is no bubble this time. We are seeing a new industry establishing right before our eyes—if they're open, that is.
No doubt you're so clever you can see into the future from that high horse you're sitting on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
http://www.businessinsider.com/apparently-no-one-told-chrysler-that-its-supposed-to-build-siri-into-its-cars-2012-6
http://www.fastcompany.com/1840149/driving-miss-siri-inside-apple-iphone-integration-with-mercedes-benz-bmw-general-motors?partner=gnews
First I'd seen of that. Thanks for the links.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't think so. Their revenues are considerably less than half of Exxon's ($185 B vs $485
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil
Exxon's net income was $41 B - or roughly 8% of revenues. Saudi Aramco would have to have net income of 60% of revenues to reach $100 B. That just doesn't seem likely.
Exxon pumps about 2.5M bpd, while Saudi pumps ~7.5M (you can find this info very easily on the web; the 7.5M number is probably an underestimate for Saudi). The correct metric to use to infer revenues from bpd is to look at the "revenue equivalent" from production of oil, natural gas and other products. If we use Exxon's multiples (as you did), Saudi's revenue must be closer to $1.4 trillion, or something in that range. 8% of that is over $100B.
It is commonly acknowledged that Saudi Aramco is the largest oil and gas producer in the world (although, they may have been eclipsed by PetroChina, hard to tell).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Where in the original article did they use discounted cash flows? Hint: they didn't. I don't care if they use discounted figures or inflation adjusted figures since you get roughly the same result. The point is that you can't compare a past market cap (or revenues or profit dollars) to current ones without an adjustment for inflation.
You certainly could compare PE ratios - but that's not what was being compared. Nor is it valid to compare PE ratios when the discussion is about "which company has the greater market cap".
Every valuation is implicitly or explicitly a DCF valuation. If it is not explicitly a DCF valuation it's likely a relative valuation based on multiples (i.e., EPS*[P/E], which is an implicit DCF valuation). In either event, my two points about valuations being independent of inflation are right -- i.e., the point about nominal cash flows discounted at the nominal discount rate being the same as valuations based on real -- i.e., inflation-adjusted -- cash flows discounted at the real discount rate numbers for both, and the point about P/E ratios being independent of inflation.
Moreover, we could argue that the real price of most tech products had fallen over time relative to functionality offered, i.e., there has been negative inflation in this business.
Independently of all that, there is no law against looking at inflation-adjusted valuations. The question is, what does it mean, if anything at all.