Hold on here. Are we supposed to take "shipped" as meaning "sold" when speaking about Apple? I thought we poke fun at "shipped" numbers when we talk about Google/Android/Samsung phones because of them stuffing the channel to make it sound like they "sold" more than they actually did but now when talking about Apple we're supposed to be using the term "shipped" also? Did I miss something?
No, we shouldn't accept shipped as sold. Nothing to fear because we'll the number sold tomorrow.
Who am I kidding, it will probably tank or barely move regardless of what they announce.
Tanks after every call, regardless of content. If Apple announced they had cured all forms of all cancers and was distributing the cure worldwide for $50 at a 500% profit per shot, it would tank.
How quickly it comes back up afterward will tell us how Wall Street really felt.
As someone else noted... the 4 and 4S numbers will be seen as affecting margins.
Cook's forward statement will be examined letter by letter today.
I keep thinking that Apple has a couple of surprises that will be announced in this current quarter and I'm wondering if there will be any hints to that end.
Hold on here. Are we supposed to take "shipped" as meaning "sold" when speaking about Apple? I thought we poke fun at "shipped" numbers when we talk about Google/Android/Samsung phones because of them stuffing the channel to make it sound like they "sold" more than they actually did but now when talking about Apple we're supposed to be using the term "shipped" also? Did I miss something?
I think the term shipped in Apple's case was just sloppy writing - as they don't report "shipped" but rather sold units, if I remember correctly. It's either shipped as in shipped units that Verizon bought or sold units that Verizon purchased. Apple does not play around with the shipped vs sold crap because that would be pointless. Their issues usually revolve around being able to produce enough of any given product in order to fulfill demand - a good problem to have, but a problem nonetheless. This is where Apple gets punished by analysts in a way that other companies don't seem to. If they sell more than they can make, it's a problem. If they make enough to meet demand, then it's deemed the product isn't selling well enough.
It makes me sick that Wall Street makes predictions about how many unis of Apple stuff should be sold and when things don't pan out WS says Apple fails. To me that's sick butnthisis what happens to public companies. Look at them a** clowns at HP. They were kinda like Apple back in the day and now they have compromised themselves. Cheap printers just to gain market share. But today that isn't even enough. It is never enough!!!
Tanks after every call, regardless of content. If Apple announced they had cured all forms of all cancers and was distributing the cure worldwide for $50 at a 500% profit per shot, it would tank.
How quickly it comes back up afterward will tell us how Wall Street really felt.
I think it is a little more complicated than just Apple bashing. If you take a look at a 3 month chart of AAPL vs IXIC you'll probably see a trend that is clearly not based on the tired old adage of 'buy on rumor, sell on news'. AAPL stock price is under pressure from technicals not fundamentals.
@macdaddykane "Doooom i tell you. Seriously why are these rumored "reduction in parts orders" aways interpreted as lower shipments and sales, instead of Apple's improved ability to produce more phones efficiently at launch. Remember when the first few iPhone models were released, there was always a severe shortage. Now with each new model, there is never much problem with availability and the iPhone continues to put up great sales numbers."
I'm sorry, what magical production method has Apple developed to produce iPhones with with less screens? To my knowledge, each iPhone requires one screen, if they are ordering less screens, it is because they are producing less iPhones. "Never and availability problem?" Do you read the news? iPhone 5 was plagued with production problems.
@jragosta "I doubt it. It undoubtedly costs a lot less to make a 4 or 4S than a 5. And the selling price difference is not that great (say, $649 vs $749). It may even be that the margins are greater on the older models (but revenue is lower, of course)."
Economies of Scale. If the iPhonne 4/4s was being produced at the same levels as the iPhone 5, then it would be plenty cheaper to manufacture, but the sheer fixed cost of running a production line for a smartphone is so high, the manufacturing cost is higher than you think, even if on paper, the price of the components isn't all that much.
I think it is a little more complicated than just Apple bashing. If you take a look at a 3 month chart of AAPL vs IXIC you'll probably see a trend that is clearly not based on the tired old adage of 'buy on rumor, sell on news'. AAPL stock price is under pressure from technicals not fundamentals.
And its doubling in stock price in like 4 months last year was all technical as well. It's called a bubble, and it looks like there's only about $70-$90 to go before the bubble is fully deflated and it will resume to trade like a normal, high quality stock.
It's either shipped as in shipped units that Verizon bought or sold units that Verizon purchased.
Yeah, with Apple's sold numbers it represents a bill of sale and complete transaction being made. It's likely that their vendors still have have units they haven't yet sold to end users by the end of the quarter despite the iPhone's popularity.
It's called lying. It's called stock manipulation. That's the point he's making.
That's the selling price. Apple makes money on every single one they sell. I'm pretty sure they're cheaper to make, being old tech.
The old versions certainly cost less to make - both component costs will be pressured down and the actual production cost will be reduced as well, both as efficiencies in the process are made and as Apple pressures Foxconn (and others) to reduce the assembly price per unit because they've gone beyond their initially projected unit volumes.
For Apple, it's always going to be a win-win to sell the old models. As they reduce the selling price to the telco's, it's not just a straight reduction in margin, because Apple also reduces the marketing dollars spent on old models. Those people with a reason to manipulate stock prices will take the news of continued high volume sales of old models as an indication that the new model isn't selling well enough. We all have to remember that the stock market is only partially driven by fact and hard numbers. It's also driven by emotion and desire, regardless of either makes "sense".
Apple reports a few numbers. They indicate "sold" that can mean sold to individuals (as in the Apple Retail or online stores) and sold to the channel partners. On top of this, they report their current channel inventory. From this, you can actually get the amount ending up in end users hands.
No other Android manufacture indicatesreports this. So Samsung, for example, will tell the media they "shipped" 2,000,000 Galaxy Tabs but not mention they only sold 20,000 to end users because they do not indicate the channel inventory.
You're the second person to say this. Where's the evidence? And why hasn't Amazon's burst?
Again there is a lot of gray area when comparing different companies and how their stock performs. For one thing neither AMZN or GOOG, for that matter, have any competition in their core business, online retail and search respectively, hence they tend to track the Nasdaq more closely. AAPL didn't make much news back when it was Apple Computer, but now that their core business is iPhone and iPad, this indicates a break from their traditional business model into a market where there is quite a bit of competition. Every little piece of news about the smartphone sector affects Apples' core business area and thus the stock price. Amazon and Google have completely different business models and their forays into Apples' core market segment are not so significant to their bottom line. Apple is not a very diversified company so their stock tends to be a lot more volatile than others in the tech industry.
How ridiculous is a society who's published works, books, and laws say one thing, the reality is the exact opposite, and not one person has the guts or the temerity to stand up and point out that the Emperor is stark f*cking naked. I honestly don't know how anyone involved in the stock market, lives with themselves or sleeps at night.
For one thing neither AMZN or GOOG, for that matter, have any competition in their core business…
To be clear, in reference to Amazon, you mean in regard to the fact that they're an online "everything store", correct?
What of other, smaller "everything stores", such as Buy.com and Overstock.com? I realize that we can discount an individual retailer's online store, as that's a different model than Amazon, but those two?
And its doubling in stock price in like 4 months last year was all technical as well. It's called a bubble, and it looks like there's only about $70-$90 to go before the bubble is fully deflated and it will resume to trade like a normal, high quality stock.
I'm always surprised at how many more people cry manipulation when the stock is headed down as to when AAPL is headed up.
For one thing neither AMZN or GOOG, for that matter, have any competition in their core business…
To be clear, in reference to Amazon, you mean in regard to the fact that they're an online "everything store", correct?
What of other, smaller "everything stores", such as Buy.com and Overstock.com? I realize that we can discount an individual retailer's online store, as that's a different model than Amazon, but those two?
In the same way that Bing and Yahoo compete with Google. That is if you can really call that 'compete'.
I think the term shipped in Apple's case was just sloppy writing - as they don't report "shipped" but rather sold units, if I remember correctly. It's either shipped as in shipped units that Verizon bought or sold units that Verizon purchased. Apple does not play around with the shipped vs sold crap because that would be pointless.
Units Apple Ships to Verizon are "sold" by Apple. Units sold by Verizon (or Apple direct) are sold to end users. The delta between what is sold to Verizon and what Verizon sells on is channel fill. Unsold units at Apple are not counted as sold. The 6.2MM number is very promising, as there should also be some channel fill adding to that.
Comments
No, we shouldn't accept shipped as sold. Nothing to fear because we'll the number sold tomorrow.
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Who am I kidding, it will probably tank or barely move regardless of what they announce.
Tanks after every call, regardless of content. If Apple announced they had cured all forms of all cancers and was distributing the cure worldwide for $50 at a 500% profit per shot, it would tank.
How quickly it comes back up afterward will tell us how Wall Street really felt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
As someone else noted... the 4 and 4S numbers will be seen as affecting margins.
Cook's forward statement will be examined letter by letter today.
I keep thinking that Apple has a couple of surprises that will be announced in this current quarter and I'm wondering if there will be any hints to that end.
Let's hope it keeps dropping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
Hold on here. Are we supposed to take "shipped" as meaning "sold" when speaking about Apple? I thought we poke fun at "shipped" numbers when we talk about Google/Android/Samsung phones because of them stuffing the channel to make it sound like they "sold" more than they actually did but now when talking about Apple we're supposed to be using the term "shipped" also? Did I miss something?
I think the term shipped in Apple's case was just sloppy writing - as they don't report "shipped" but rather sold units, if I remember correctly. It's either shipped as in shipped units that Verizon bought or sold units that Verizon purchased. Apple does not play around with the shipped vs sold crap because that would be pointless. Their issues usually revolve around being able to produce enough of any given product in order to fulfill demand - a good problem to have, but a problem nonetheless. This is where Apple gets punished by analysts in a way that other companies don't seem to. If they sell more than they can make, it's a problem. If they make enough to meet demand, then it's deemed the product isn't selling well enough.
Look at them a** clowns at HP. They were kinda like Apple back in the day and now they have compromised themselves. Cheap printers just to gain market share. But today that isn't even enough. It is never enough!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Tanks after every call, regardless of content. If Apple announced they had cured all forms of all cancers and was distributing the cure worldwide for $50 at a 500% profit per shot, it would tank.
How quickly it comes back up afterward will tell us how Wall Street really felt.
I think it is a little more complicated than just Apple bashing. If you take a look at a 3 month chart of AAPL vs IXIC you'll probably see a trend that is clearly not based on the tired old adage of 'buy on rumor, sell on news'. AAPL stock price is under pressure from technicals not fundamentals.
I'm sorry, what magical production method has Apple developed to produce iPhones with with less screens? To my knowledge, each iPhone requires one screen, if they are ordering less screens, it is because they are producing less iPhones. "Never and availability problem?" Do you read the news? iPhone 5 was plagued with production problems.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/17/apples-iphone-5-supply-shortage-caused-by-assembly-challenges-foxconn-exec-reports/
@jragosta "I doubt it. It undoubtedly costs a lot less to make a 4 or 4S than a 5. And the selling price difference is not that great (say, $649 vs $749). It may even be that the margins are greater on the older models (but revenue is lower, of course)."
Economies of Scale. If the iPhonne 4/4s was being produced at the same levels as the iPhone 5, then it would be plenty cheaper to manufacture, but the sheer fixed cost of running a production line for a smartphone is so high, the manufacturing cost is higher than you think, even if on paper, the price of the components isn't all that much.
Originally Posted by RRtexasranger
Do you read the news? iPhone 5 was plagued with production problems.
It's called lying. It's called stock manipulation. That's the point he's making.
…even if on paper, the price of the components isn't all that much.
That's the selling price. Apple makes money on every single one they sell. I'm pretty sure they're cheaper to make, being old tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I think it is a little more complicated than just Apple bashing. If you take a look at a 3 month chart of AAPL vs IXIC you'll probably see a trend that is clearly not based on the tired old adage of 'buy on rumor, sell on news'. AAPL stock price is under pressure from technicals not fundamentals.
And its doubling in stock price in like 4 months last year was all technical as well. It's called a bubble, and it looks like there's only about $70-$90 to go before the bubble is fully deflated and it will resume to trade like a normal, high quality stock.
Originally Posted by RRtexasranger
It's called a bubble…
You're the second person to say this. Where's the evidence? And why hasn't Amazon's burst?
Yeah, with Apple's sold numbers it represents a bill of sale and complete transaction being made. It's likely that their vendors still have have units they haven't yet sold to end users by the end of the quarter despite the iPhone's popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Welcome!
It's called lying. It's called stock manipulation. That's the point he's making.
That's the selling price. Apple makes money on every single one they sell. I'm pretty sure they're cheaper to make, being old tech.
The old versions certainly cost less to make - both component costs will be pressured down and the actual production cost will be reduced as well, both as efficiencies in the process are made and as Apple pressures Foxconn (and others) to reduce the assembly price per unit because they've gone beyond their initially projected unit volumes.
For Apple, it's always going to be a win-win to sell the old models. As they reduce the selling price to the telco's, it's not just a straight reduction in margin, because Apple also reduces the marketing dollars spent on old models. Those people with a reason to manipulate stock prices will take the news of continued high volume sales of old models as an indication that the new model isn't selling well enough. We all have to remember that the stock market is only partially driven by fact and hard numbers. It's also driven by emotion and desire, regardless of either makes "sense".
@Dickprinter regarding shipped VS sold.
Apple reports a few numbers. They indicate "sold" that can mean sold to individuals (as in the Apple Retail or online stores) and sold to the channel partners. On top of this, they report their current channel inventory. From this, you can actually get the amount ending up in end users hands.
No other Android manufacture indicatesreports this. So Samsung, for example, will tell the media they "shipped" 2,000,000 Galaxy Tabs but not mention they only sold 20,000 to end users because they do not indicate the channel inventory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by RRtexasranger
It's called a bubble…
You're the second person to say this. Where's the evidence? And why hasn't Amazon's burst?
Again there is a lot of gray area when comparing different companies and how their stock performs. For one thing neither AMZN or GOOG, for that matter, have any competition in their core business, online retail and search respectively, hence they tend to track the Nasdaq more closely. AAPL didn't make much news back when it was Apple Computer, but now that their core business is iPhone and iPad, this indicates a break from their traditional business model into a market where there is quite a bit of competition. Every little piece of news about the smartphone sector affects Apples' core business area and thus the stock price. Amazon and Google have completely different business models and their forays into Apples' core market segment are not so significant to their bottom line. Apple is not a very diversified company so their stock tends to be a lot more volatile than others in the tech industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
How ridiculous is a society who's published works, books, and laws say one thing, the reality is the exact opposite, and not one person has the guts or the temerity to stand up and point out that the Emperor is stark f*cking naked. I honestly don't know how anyone involved in the stock market, lives with themselves or sleeps at night.
With a lot of money.
Originally Posted by mstone
For one thing neither AMZN or GOOG, for that matter, have any competition in their core business…
To be clear, in reference to Amazon, you mean in regard to the fact that they're an online "everything store", correct?
What of other, smaller "everything stores", such as Buy.com and Overstock.com? I realize that we can discount an individual retailer's online store, as that's a different model than Amazon, but those two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRtexasranger
And its doubling in stock price in like 4 months last year was all technical as well. It's called a bubble, and it looks like there's only about $70-$90 to go before the bubble is fully deflated and it will resume to trade like a normal, high quality stock.
I'm always surprised at how many more people cry manipulation when the stock is headed down as to when AAPL is headed up.
Well, okay, I'm not surprised...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by mstone
For one thing neither AMZN or GOOG, for that matter, have any competition in their core business…
To be clear, in reference to Amazon, you mean in regard to the fact that they're an online "everything store", correct?
What of other, smaller "everything stores", such as Buy.com and Overstock.com? I realize that we can discount an individual retailer's online store, as that's a different model than Amazon, but those two?
In the same way that Bing and Yahoo compete with Google. That is if you can really call that 'compete'.