Your stuck-up thinking goes counter intuitive to the very essence of capitalism.
Apple will be in a dire hurt if they indeed listen to what you have to say. What you are wishing for the company is the very opposite of what an Apple fanboy should be demanding. You are basically appealing for its destruction.
It is inevitable for Apple to follow what the consumers are asking for. Too bad it will be an uphill battle for them as Samsung has a very large lead in that area and its only gaining prescence the more time Apple spends its time twiddling its fingers.
Too bad for you, Apple has already taken notice and is already implementing the solutions by rounding up suppliers who can provide a cheaper version of their products. The management team knows it, their accountants certainly do so perhaps its time for the so called fanboys to line up with Apple. No?
It's certainly a harsh reality to swallow having to let down your egos and pride to face the harsh reality of life.
Look at the reality and stop dreaming.
Apple executives consistently state that their goal is to make the best products possible. As a shareholder, I'm glad that they also manage to be very profitable, too. If they can continue to accomplish these two things, I will be very happy, as will a lot of other people.
Rather than striving to "follow what the consumers are asking for," they have typically chosen to anticipate what consumers will most appreciate. There is an important difference here. Consumers wanted an LTE iPhone several years ago, and Apple could have given it to them sooner, but the result would have been crappy battery life (and perhaps lower margins). So they waited, and some people like my sister bought what they thought they wanted from another vendor, and eventually learned to hate their phone. Larger screens are another example of something that some people would like but there are drawbacks there too--harder to type on with one hand, less compact/portable, screen size can impact battery life, etc. Apple lets other manufacturers compete by targeting the minority that wants something other than what will best serve the majority. Sales of competing products are lower on a per-model basis, and as a result their margins are also lower on a product of comparable quality (although I would argue that "comparable quality" is rarely seen from the competitors).
Since they do often have trouble keeping up with demand for their hottest products, I can see the logic in thinking they should raise their prices and that may be true, but the only real problem is the ridiculous expectations of some analysts and investors. In Apple's most recent "disappointing" quarter, their profits in this one quarter were more than 2.5x greater than the total of all of Amazon's profits since Amazon first started doing business. So, "looking at the reality" by any normal measure, Apple is doing pretty well, and I've seen no hard evidence that Samsung has a "very large lead" in profitability, product quality or customer satisfaction, which are the things that really matter.
I've written this before, but if margins are such a big deal, then why doesn't Apple jack up it's prices? I don't give a crap if some people can't afford Apple devices, too bad for them. Frankly speaking, life isn't fair, and if somebody can't afford a new Apple device, then go buy something else, problem solved, just please don't whine about it.
What does the fact of you "don't give a crap" have anything to do with anything?!...under what perspective are you even spewing from? Certainly not from a share holder/owner/board member type perspective. Can you imagine leaders of Apple not giving a crap? Thankfully they do. And while they know it's not feasible, they DO GIVE A CRAP... that there are some markets that they can't reach.
Listen, I share your frustration with share prices/margins/units sold/etc....but to then go over board and say that Apple should just jack up prices is quite ridiculous. Jacking up prices would dramatically decrease their market presence. And I'm not sure what your opinions are of critical mass, but it's an important factor in the hardware and software computing business.
Should Apple have high end hardware?...absolutely! It can do that while also offering products on the lower cost scale as well.
But I don't think it has to be Mercedes, known ONLY for the affluent. No, no no.
Rather than striving to "follow what the consumers are asking for," they have typically chosen to anticipate what consumers will most appreciate. There is an important difference here.
Yes, yes, yes. Good post.
Apple][ take note. This is probably the direction your post should be targeted towards, not merely jacking up prices.
I don't think the analyst is saying that purchase commitments is directly tied to the gross margins. I think she's saying the reduced purchase commitments are an indicator of minimal hardware changes in a possible iPhone 5s model. This model, together with stable end user prices but falling NAND prices, would improve margins. I think the issue may be how this article is written, not the analyst's logic. Without reading the analyst's original commentary, it is difficult to know for sure.
Read what the article says:
But she believes that lower capital equipment purchases and potentially more favorable NAND flash prices could result in improved margins toward the end of 2013.
As evidence, Huberty pointed to Apple's 10-Q filing, in which the company revealed that its purchase commitments for the current quarter are just $904 million. That compares to $4.5 billion just two quarters ago, when the company invested in new in-cell touch displays for the iPhone 5 launch.
Clearly, Huberty is saying that the lower purchase commitments are the cause of the improved margins.
The only other possible interpretation is that she might think that spending less money on capital investment changes the margins. That's not directly true, either. (Indirectly, more capital investment can increase margins if it improves productivity or decrease margins if it does not - but only if the company includes depreciation in COGS which not all companies do).
Your stuck-up thinking goes counter intuitive to the very essence of capitalism.
You actually have it completely wrong. The person you were responding to was suggesting (at least partially tongue in cheek as near as I can tell) that Apple should raise the prices to improve margins. That is capitalism at work. There is a direct link between the price you charge and the margins (although volume and COGS can complicate it).
The opposite of capitalism would be socialism - or the idea that Apple should lower its prices enough so that everyone could afford it regardless of how little profit Apple might make. So, essentially, you have it exactly backwards.
In reality, Apple's job - as a capitalist company with legal responsibilities to the shareholders - is to maximize its profits and/or return on investment. If raising the price does that, then that's what they should do. If lowering the price gets enough additional volume to make up for the loss of margin, then that's what they should do.
In the end, no one has a better grasp on the price elasticity and volume effects on manufacturing cost than Apple does.
Clearly, Huberty is saying that the lower purchase commitments are the cause of the improved margins.
Before deciding for certain what she meant why not look at exactly what she wrote rather than AI's interpretation of it.
"Lower planned purchases of production equipment sets up for higher iPhone 5S margin. The 10-Q discloses $904M of commitments for equipment purchases compare to $4.5B just two quarters ago when Apple invested in new in-cell touch displays for the iPhone 5. The decrease is likely due to iPhone 5S not requiring significant hardware changes, therefore iPhone GM could be much higher in C2H13."
I don't think the analyst is saying that purchase commitments is directly tied to the gross margins. I think she's saying the reduced purchase commitments are an indicator of minimal hardware changes in a possible iPhone 5s model. This model, together with stable end user prices but falling NAND prices, would improve margins. I think the issue may be how this article is written, not the analyst's logic. Without reading the analyst's original commentary, it is difficult to know for sure.
If your sick of all the manipulation of Apple stock (and other public companies as well) do something about it! Send a copy of the letter at this URL to your Senators and Congressman:
Apple should always try to build the best devices in the world. That is its DNA.
With that said, they should launch an "iPhone Pro" along with the iPhone 5S later this year. The Pro model will have a 5" screen and comes with the best bluetooth headset ever. Apple will standardize the use of bluetooth headsets for the masses. The Pro model will be more expensive.
Apple also needs to focus on iOS 7. The gap with Android is becoming too close.
Comments
Other sites also spell- and grammar-check their articles, but you don't see AppleInsider doing that either...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Meanwhile Amazon has NO margins to speak of (1-2%), lost money, and it is the darling of Wall Street.
That's what I don't understand -- why AMZN stock is flying high, whilst AAPL stock has been stagnant for almost a year now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Your stuck-up thinking goes counter intuitive to the very essence of capitalism.
Apple will be in a dire hurt if they indeed listen to what you have to say. What you are wishing for the company is the very opposite of what an Apple fanboy should be demanding. You are basically appealing for its destruction.
It is inevitable for Apple to follow what the consumers are asking for. Too bad it will be an uphill battle for them as Samsung has a very large lead in that area and its only gaining prescence the more time Apple spends its time twiddling its fingers.
Too bad for you, Apple has already taken notice and is already implementing the solutions by rounding up suppliers who can provide a cheaper version of their products. The management team knows it, their accountants certainly do so perhaps its time for the so called fanboys to line up with Apple. No?
It's certainly a harsh reality to swallow having to let down your egos and pride to face the harsh reality of life.
Look at the reality and stop dreaming.
Apple executives consistently state that their goal is to make the best products possible. As a shareholder, I'm glad that they also manage to be very profitable, too. If they can continue to accomplish these two things, I will be very happy, as will a lot of other people.
Rather than striving to "follow what the consumers are asking for," they have typically chosen to anticipate what consumers will most appreciate. There is an important difference here. Consumers wanted an LTE iPhone several years ago, and Apple could have given it to them sooner, but the result would have been crappy battery life (and perhaps lower margins). So they waited, and some people like my sister bought what they thought they wanted from another vendor, and eventually learned to hate their phone. Larger screens are another example of something that some people would like but there are drawbacks there too--harder to type on with one hand, less compact/portable, screen size can impact battery life, etc. Apple lets other manufacturers compete by targeting the minority that wants something other than what will best serve the majority. Sales of competing products are lower on a per-model basis, and as a result their margins are also lower on a product of comparable quality (although I would argue that "comparable quality" is rarely seen from the competitors).
Since they do often have trouble keeping up with demand for their hottest products, I can see the logic in thinking they should raise their prices and that may be true, but the only real problem is the ridiculous expectations of some analysts and investors. In Apple's most recent "disappointing" quarter, their profits in this one quarter were more than 2.5x greater than the total of all of Amazon's profits since Amazon first started doing business. So, "looking at the reality" by any normal measure, Apple is doing pretty well, and I've seen no hard evidence that Samsung has a "very large lead" in profitability, product quality or customer satisfaction, which are the things that really matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I've written this before, but if margins are such a big deal, then why doesn't Apple jack up it's prices? I don't give a crap if some people can't afford Apple devices, too bad for them. Frankly speaking, life isn't fair, and if somebody can't afford a new Apple device, then go buy something else, problem solved, just please don't whine about it.
What does the fact of you "don't give a crap" have anything to do with anything?!...under what perspective are you even spewing from? Certainly not from a share holder/owner/board member type perspective. Can you imagine leaders of Apple not giving a crap? Thankfully they do. And while they know it's not feasible, they DO GIVE A CRAP... that there are some markets that they can't reach.
Listen, I share your frustration with share prices/margins/units sold/etc....but to then go over board and say that Apple should just jack up prices is quite ridiculous. Jacking up prices would dramatically decrease their market presence. And I'm not sure what your opinions are of critical mass, but it's an important factor in the hardware and software computing business.
Should Apple have high end hardware?...absolutely! It can do that while also offering products on the lower cost scale as well.
But I don't think it has to be Mercedes, known ONLY for the affluent. No, no no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrogusto
Rather than striving to "follow what the consumers are asking for," they have typically chosen to anticipate what consumers will most appreciate. There is an important difference here.
Yes, yes, yes. Good post.
Apple][ take note. This is probably the direction your post should be targeted towards, not merely jacking up prices.
Read what the article says:
Clearly, Huberty is saying that the lower purchase commitments are the cause of the improved margins.
The only other possible interpretation is that she might think that spending less money on capital investment changes the margins. That's not directly true, either. (Indirectly, more capital investment can increase margins if it improves productivity or decrease margins if it does not - but only if the company includes depreciation in COGS which not all companies do).
You actually have it completely wrong. The person you were responding to was suggesting (at least partially tongue in cheek as near as I can tell) that Apple should raise the prices to improve margins. That is capitalism at work. There is a direct link between the price you charge and the margins (although volume and COGS can complicate it).
The opposite of capitalism would be socialism - or the idea that Apple should lower its prices enough so that everyone could afford it regardless of how little profit Apple might make. So, essentially, you have it exactly backwards.
In reality, Apple's job - as a capitalist company with legal responsibilities to the shareholders - is to maximize its profits and/or return on investment. If raising the price does that, then that's what they should do. If lowering the price gets enough additional volume to make up for the loss of margin, then that's what they should do.
In the end, no one has a better grasp on the price elasticity and volume effects on manufacturing cost than Apple does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Read what the article says:
Clearly, Huberty is saying that the lower purchase commitments are the cause of the improved margins.
Before deciding for certain what she meant why not look at exactly what she wrote rather than AI's interpretation of it.
"Lower planned purchases of production equipment sets up for higher iPhone 5S margin. The 10-Q discloses $904M of commitments for equipment purchases compare to $4.5B just two quarters ago when Apple invested in new in-cell touch displays for the iPhone 5. The decrease is likely due to iPhone 5S not requiring significant hardware changes, therefore iPhone GM could be much higher in C2H13."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-next-iphone-will-look-just-like-the-current-iphone-2013-2#ixzz2JxlV8ckw
Now you don't have to guess. It's not what you thought she meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus
I don't think the analyst is saying that purchase commitments is directly tied to the gross margins. I think she's saying the reduced purchase commitments are an indicator of minimal hardware changes in a possible iPhone 5s model. This model, together with stable end user prices but falling NAND prices, would improve margins. I think the issue may be how this article is written, not the analyst's logic. Without reading the analyst's original commentary, it is difficult to know for sure.
Well done Wubbus. You hit it on the head.
http://stop-stock-manipulation.blogspot.com
And you can also sign the petition located here:
https://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-manipulation-of-stock-prices-by-hedge-funds
No point in just moaning about, we have to actually do something about it... I did
Originally Posted by skleiniv
What other apple sites?
You know, Apple.com, Patently Apple, Scoopertino… "all" other Apple sites.
Apple should always try to build the best devices in the world. That is its DNA.
With that said, they should launch an "iPhone Pro" along with the iPhone 5S later this year. The Pro model will have a 5" screen and comes with the best bluetooth headset ever. Apple will standardize the use of bluetooth headsets for the masses. The Pro model will be more expensive.
Apple also needs to focus on iOS 7. The gap with Android is becoming too close.