iPhone 5 demand 'robust,' order cuts likely stem from improved yields & supplier shifts

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 89

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So when was it that Apple got rid of ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS that we didn't have an article about it?



     


    Hmmm... I added up jragosta's numbers and still got $120 - $130 billion.


     


    $30 billion liquid...  $90-$100 billion invested long term

  • Reply 62 of 89


    Something isn't squaring with these Apple reports, relative to Android market growth:


     


    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/01/samsungs-copying-apple-now-extends-to-major-nda-paranoia.html


     


    Cited from Korea's Electronic Times:


     


    Quote:


    Samsung Electronics, while in the process of developing a next-generation smartphone, has entered into a series of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) with its subcontracts. The aim is to prevent the leakage of information related to its new products amid intensifying patent competition with Apple over design and product specification. In another Electronic Times report this morning, they're reporting that financial information provider FnGuide is stating that Samsung Electronics' turnover and operating profits are expected to decrease 4.93% and 5.88% quarter on quarter to 53,240.6 billion and 8,282.9 billion won in Q1 of this year, respectively. The net profit is estimated to decline 4.58% to 6,804.7 billion won, too.



     


    Samsung owns the Android Market. People aren't buying less smartphones. Global sales are expanding.

  • Reply 63 of 89
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member

    the WSJ article – front page! – is stupid beyond belief. iPhone sales in the last year by quarter were 37M, 35M, 26M, and 27M. plus about 3M-5M iPod touch sales per quarter. so just to repeat last year’s sales for its first two quarters – the period that current old+new orders would cover until the next model is possibly launched in the early Spring – Apple would need 80M screens. add perhaps 25% growth in sales, it would need 100M.

    assuming a typical 55M/45M split between the two quarters, at least 65M of those screens have already been manufactured, leaving 35M to go.

    so yes, Apple’s initial orders could possibly have totaled 65M, and it next order would indeed be almost 1/2 less at 35M. that would be consistent with the raw numbers in the first report the WSJ used as its jump-off.

    but this has nothing to do with “slow sales,” unless one would claim that 25% YOY sales growth is somehow a “slowing.” it is indeed merely parts inventory management and no more.

    if i can do the very very very simple math above, anyone can. the failure of all the so-called “journalists” (starting with the rapidly decaying WSJ) and web “pundits” (hello, The Verge) to get even this far is just utterly pathetic. this sorry episode perhaps illustrates better than ever the preposterously lame state of tech “reporting” today. it’s about 85% rumor hit-whoring or cynical spin-doctoring.
  • Reply 64 of 89
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


     


    Hmmm... I added up jragosta's numbers and still got $120 - $130 billion.


     


    $30 billion liquid...  $90-$100 billion invested long term



     


    It's pretty much been this way a while now.  $10B in cash.  $15-20B short term securities (less than 1 year).  The remainder in long term securities that mature past that 12 month mark...mostly ones that mature between 1-5 years.


     


    So when you look on Apple balance sheet on Yahoo you see $29B "cash" (actually cash, cash equiv + short term) and $92B long term investments.


     


    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL&annual


     


    What number has been growing like crazy?  


     


    Long term:  $25B in Sept 2010, $55B in Sept 2011, and $92B in Sept 2012.


     


    But most folks count all this as "cash".  These long term securities are all very safe and could be sold if necessary if Apple wanted to buy something BIG.

  • Reply 65 of 89
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    So when was it that Apple got rid of ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS that we didn't have an article about it?

    They didn't get rid of $100 B nor did anyone claim that they did. They converted $90 B in cash and short term investments into long term investments. This should have happened a long time ago - they averaged less than 1% return on their cash.

    It really amazes me how quick you are to jump into throwing out your opinion on so many topics that you clearly don't understand.
  • Reply 66 of 89
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    alfiejr wrote: »
    <h5 style="margin-bottom:10px;border:0px;font-size:12px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:rgb(245,245,245);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15px;font-family:Georgia, serif;">the WSJ article – front page! – is stupid beyond belief. iPhone sales in the last year by quarter were 37M, 35M, 26M, and 27M. plus about 3M-5M iPod touch sales per quarter. so just to repeat last year’s sales for its first two quarters – the period that current old+new orders would cover until the next model is possibly launched in the early Spring – Apple would need 80M screens. add perhaps 25% growth in sales, it would need 100M.</h5>

    <h5 style="margin-bottom:10px;border:0px;font-size:12px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:rgb(245,245,245);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15px;font-family:Georgia, serif;">assuming a typical 55M/45M split between the two quarters, at least 65M of those screens have already been manufactured, leaving 35M to go.</h5>

    <h5 style="margin-bottom:10px;border:0px;font-size:12px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:rgb(245,245,245);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15px;font-family:Georgia, serif;">so yes, Apple’s initial orders could possibly have totaled 65M, and it next order would indeed be almost 1/2 less at 35M. that would be consistent with the raw numbers in the first report the WSJ used as its jump-off.</h5>

    <h5 style="margin-bottom:10px;border:0px;font-size:12px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:rgb(245,245,245);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15px;font-family:Georgia, serif;">but this has nothing to do with “slow sales,” unless one would claim that 25% YOY sales growth is somehow a “slowing.” it is indeed merely parts inventory management and no more.</h5>

    <h5 style="margin-bottom:10px;border:0px;font-size:12px;vertical-align:baseline;background-color:rgb(245,245,245);color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15px;font-family:Georgia, serif;">if i can do the very very very simple math above, anyone can. the failure of all the so-called “journalists” (starting with the rapidly decaying WSJ) and web “pundits” (hello, The Verge) to get even this far is just utterly pathetic. this sorry episode perhaps illustrates better than ever the preposterously lame state of tech “reporting” today. it’s about 85% rumor hit-whoring or cynical spin-doctoring.</h5>

    One error in your math. It's probably more like 95% in your last line.
  • Reply 67 of 89
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member


    For his part, Wu believes that reduced orders for iPhone 5 components are a result of improved yields, which has required Apple to place fewer orders for components. In addition, he said supplier shift changes made by Apple have contributed to the cuts.


     


    There's also the fact that the iPod touch uses the exact same screen component as the iPhone 5.  And as we all know, iPod sales are highly seasonal, the big season having just ended.  I'd say that's another factor in addition to shifting away from (legacy) LCD touch panel suppliers.

  • Reply 68 of 89
    19831983 Posts: 1,184member
    I don't feel Apple's stock is ever going to reach $840. I think the company's market value will continue to decline until it settles around the $200-250 billion mark. I hope that I'm wrong though.
  • Reply 69 of 89
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    jragosta wrote: »
    That's no longer true. They've converted much of their cash to longer term investments. IIRC, they're at $30-40 B in cash and about $90 B in long term investments.

    So when was it that Apple got rid of ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS that we didn't have an article about it?

    Companies are not required to make public announcements when they move funds around this way. The information has to be gleaned from places like quarterly reports.
    [SIZE=14px]Something isn't squaring with these Apple reports, relative to Android market growth:[/SIZE]

    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/01/samsungs-copying-apple-now-extends-to-major-nda-paranoia.html

    [SIZE=14px]Cited from Korea's Electronic Times:[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=12pt]Samsung Electronics, while in the process of developing a next-generation smartphone, has entered into a series of non-disclosure agreements (NDA) with its subcontracts. The aim is to prevent the leakage of information related to its new products amid intensifying patent competition with Apple over design and product specification. In another Electronic Times report this morning, they're reporting that financial information provider FnGuide is stating that <span style="background-color:#ffffbf;">Samsung Electronics' turnover and operating profits are expected to decrease 4.93% and 5.88% quarter on quarter to 53,240.6 billion and 8,282.9 billion won in Q1 of this year, respectively. The net profit is estimated to decline 4.58% to 6,804.7 billion won, too.</span>
    [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=14px]Samsung owns the Android Market. People aren't buying less smartphones. Global sales are expanding.[/SIZE]

    Note that the decline is quarter-on-quarter. Samsung probably sells more during the holiday quarter, just like Apple.
  • Reply 70 of 89


    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

    Hmmm... I added up jragosta's numbers and still got $120 - $130 billion.


     


    $30 billion liquid...  $90-$100 billion invested long term



     


    Sorry, I mean "got rid of" in the "no longer cash" sense. Where did we hear about these investments?

  • Reply 71 of 89
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    They didn't get rid of $100 B nor did anyone claim that they did. They converted $90 B in cash and short term investments into long term investments. This should have happened a long time ago - they averaged less than 1% return on their cash.



    It really amazes me how quick you are to jump into throwing out your opinion on so many topics that you clearly don't understand.


     


    It "happened" in 2010.  Sorta.  They've been very steady as you can see in the chart below in terms of cash/short term investments from $24.49B in 2008 to 29.13B in 2012.


     


    http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/aapl/financials/balance-sheet


     


    You can make the case that based on cash flow it REALLY started happening in 2011 as everything that matured ($69B) as well as everything they made ($37B) got pumped back into investments ($102B). 


     


    http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/aapl/financials/cash-flow


     


    It's very very impressive but contrary to some opinions around here I think that the current mound of cash is healthy and not too much if they decide they need to vertically integrate.  It all depends on TSMC, GlobalFoundries, UMC, Sharp, etc.  The CapEx involved in chips and advanced display manufacturing is huge.

  • Reply 72 of 89
    nhtnht Posts: 4,494member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Sorry, I mean "got rid of" in the "no longer cash" sense. Where did we hear about these investments?



     


    You've never read the quarterlies or annual report?

  • Reply 73 of 89
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    the WSJ article – front page! – is stupid beyond belief. iPhone sales in the last year by quarter were 37M, 35M, 26M, and 27M. plus about 3M-5M iPod touch sales per quarter. so just to repeat last year’s sales for its first two quarters – the period that current old+new orders would cover until the next model is possibly launched in the early Spring – Apple would need 80M screens. add perhaps 25% growth in sales, it would need 100M.



     


    Note that the WSJ article specifically only spoke of orders for the first quarter, not two quarters.   That's why they're getting grief, for even thinking that 65 million was a likely order for one quarter.


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


     


    Quote:


     In another Electronic Times report this morning, they're reporting that financial information provider FnGuide is stating that Samsung Electronics' turnover and operating profits are expected to decrease 4.93% and 5.88% quarter on quarter to 53,240.6 billion and 8,282.9 billion won in Q1 of this year, respectively. The net profit is estimated to decline 4.58% to 6,804.7 billion won, too.



     



     


    Just a note that Samsung Electronics makes a LOT of different products, including flat panels, printers, laptops, and of course it's the world's largest memory chip maker.   So if flat screen TV and memory chip sales fall off, its overall profits decrease.


     


    What I think you wanted to compare with, is their Telecom and phone division, which usually has been reporting double the profits of last year. 


     


    Carry on.

  • Reply 74 of 89
    Exactly how is yield affecting units ordered???

    When you order 100K chips or screens from a supplier, it means 100K good units. Just because the supplier has better yields does not mean you would order fewer units. So whoever came up with that stupid "explanation" is smoking something.
  • Reply 75 of 89
    mikeb85mikeb85 Posts: 506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by blackbook View Post


     


    Android still has a lot of refinements to make. It's still lacks a lot of smoothness that iOS has had since day 1.


     


    iOS needs a better settings interface, but as you said, Apple needs to bring some innovation that none of us are expecting with this next release.





    iOS 4 on the iPhone 3G was anything but smooth...


     


    I'd disagree about Android.  They've been more innovative, at the expense of refinement.  But the key to Android is the slightly more open API - being able to change defaults and system settings that you can't on iOS.  You can even have a Google-services-free Android phone if you so desire...

  • Reply 76 of 89
    mikeb85mikeb85 Posts: 506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 1983 View Post



    I don't feel Apple's stock is ever going to reach $840. I think the company's market value will continue to decline until it settles around the $200-250 billion mark. I hope that I'm wrong though.




    If history is any indicator, this is probably the case.  Doesn't mean Apple the company is doing badly, but I think the strait up stock price movement is a thing of the past.

  • Reply 77 of 89

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Sorry, I mean "got rid of" in the "no longer cash" sense. Where did we hear about these investments?





    See posts #42 and #50.

  • Reply 78 of 89
    blackbookblackbook Posts: 1,361member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post




    iOS 4 on the iPhone 3G was anything but smooth...


     


    I'd disagree about Android.  They've been more innovative, at the expense of refinement.  But the key to Android is the slightly more open API - being able to change defaults and system settings that you can't on iOS.  You can even have a Google-services-free Android phone if you so desire...



    I actually had a 3G with iOS 4 and it was slow, but still inheritantly "smooth".


     


    I was just playing with a friend's Nexus 7 and although it's fast, the screen wasn't always responsive and the lack of rubber-banding is also a turn off that makes the device feel archaic. 


     


    Also all of the apps are stretched phone apps that look pixelated on the screen. Playing games wasn't entirely enjoyable because sometimes my touch command would work, other times it would trigger something else, or not respond at all.


     


    Maybe it's not a software issue, but a hardware one? Either way the lack of rubber banding does make the device seem less smooth...

  • Reply 79 of 89
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member

    See posts #42 and #50.

    And especially your post #49 which shows the history.

    There does, however, appear to be an error in that table. Look at the rows for "total long term investments" and "other long term investments". For most years, the two rows are the same, but there's a single year where one row is zero and the other is not. I'm guessing it's a typo, although it doesn't have to be.
Sign In or Register to comment.