Apple & Samsung capture 103% of handset profits as rivals lose money

1457910

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 181
    If you say it's "neither moot nor clever", I guess it must be so.

    Sigh. Just ignore the point about the real world... (if you can find me an industry with exactly zero profits, I'll eat crow; otherwise, you call it quits on this one -- fair?)

    I don't have to find you an actual example of that happening. Math applies not just to the past but to the future as well. If you want to tell me that it is not possible for that to ever happen in any possible future of this universe then I don't know how to argue against you any longer.
  • Reply 122 of 181
    Ah, tell me then, (after all, your name includes the word 'finance' in it, so I am guessing your interests are somehow related to the field), do P/E ratios apply to the real world? Especially since you argue that E can be zero?

    That ratio doesn't have units. It can therefore give outputs that are undefined.
  • Reply 123 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    That wasn't your first mistake.



    You're right again! My first mistake was debating accounting with someone that knows little about the subject.

  • Reply 124 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post





    That ratio doesn't have units. It can therefore give outputs that are undefined.


    Oh boy....

  • Reply 125 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BrianCPA View Post


    You're right again! My first mistake was debating accounting with someone that knows little about the subject.



    Again, for a person who took umbrage at "attacking the person, not the argument", that's a rather inconsistent thing to say, no?


     


    Should I judge your knowledge of accounting based on your inability to define something as basic as 'profit margin'?

  • Reply 126 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post



    I don't have to find you an actual example of that happening.


    Of course not.


     


    The point is, you couldn't, even if you wanted to, and you know that.

  • Reply 127 of 181
    hmm wrote: »
    , and you could have mentioned this rather than just typing "*snort*". 

    Yeah, but it was pretty good blow.
  • Reply 128 of 181
    Oh boy....

    Good argument.

    Of course not.

    The point is, you couldn't, even if you wanted to, and you know that.

    I explained why it's not necessary. Or did you not read that part of my post?
  • Reply 129 of 181
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post





    You're resorting to attacking a mistake in his grammar because you can no longer oppose his argument. Well, you could oppose it but you'd look like an idiot.


    How cute. I didn't oppose or support his argument. But you jumped to that conclusion immediately because you were poised to pounce on anything. Spoiling for a fight just for the sake of it, eh? How cute.

  • Reply 130 of 181
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    You didn't even address his point. Use his example and do the math you're advocating.

    Company A makes $100 in profits.
    Company B has $100 in losses.

    The industry net profit is $0.

    You and jragosta are saying that in order yo determine Company A's share of the profits we make the following calculation:

    Company profits/total industry profits = $100/$0 = infinity.

    You are literally arguing for that to be possible and logical.

    Sorry, a number divided by zero is not infinity. It is indeterminate (it approaches infinity).

    Again, you and 'BrianCPA' keep making the most basic math mistakes, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

    briancpa wrote: »
    That's our whole point. Company A made $10 in profit but you're saying that they're profit is undefined. $10 in profit (or in this case 25% of all profits) is NOT undefined. It's absolutely a defined and definitive number that can be presented in a defined and definitive percentage.

    And for the record: YES, APPLE AND SAMSUNG MADE MORE PROFIT THAT THE INDUSTRY AS A WHOLE. I don't disagree with you for a minute.

    So if they made more profit than the industry as a whole, how is the percentage not over 100%?

    Furthermore, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question in post #54. Where did the extra $10 come from if we do it your way?
  • Reply 131 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post





    Good argument.

    I explained why it's not necessary. Or did you not read that part of my post?


    Oh, I did. It made no sense. Whatsoever.

  • Reply 132 of 181
    Oh, I did. It made no sense. Whatsoever.

    I should have expected that. You don't seem to be one who understands math or logic.
  • Reply 133 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    Sorry, a number divided by zero is not infinity. It is indeterminate (it approaches infinity).



    Again, you and 'BrianCPA' keep making the most basic math mistakes, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

    So if they made more profit than the industry as a whole, how is the percentage not over 100%?



    Furthermore, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question in post #54. Where did the extra $10 come from if we do it your way?


    You're right. Making a math mistake invalidates everything I know. Just as you being wrong about this argument proves you don't know anything? Invalid logic.


     


    You cannot have profit percentages over 100%. I get what you're saying, I know how you came up with your number. It's a cute spin on math but when you are presenting "profit percentages" you don't include losses. You include losses when calculating total industry profit, you include losses when adding segments together, but you do NOT include losses when you are presenting PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS. Percentage of profits specifically means what percentage of profits. Losses are not profits.


     


    That's the only point I'm trying to make. Yes, they made more than the total of the market. You can't make more than 100% of revenues, you can't take more than 100% of expenses, and you can't take more that 100% of profits.


     


     


    I have nothing to say about post #54 because (1) I did not read it and (2) that was not me you were talking to in that post.

  • Reply 134 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wakefinance View Post





    I should have expected that. You don't seem to be one who understands math or logic.


    I'll ignore the putdown.


     


    If someone else can explain what you wrote, I'd be happy to respond. It surely could be a function of the limitations of my brain's processing capabilities -- although I happen to think it's your inability express your idea clearly -- but your post made no sense at all.

  • Reply 135 of 181
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    briancpa wrote: »
    You cannot have profit percentages over 100%. I get what you're saying, I know how you came up with your number. It's a cute spin on math but when you are presenting "profit percentages" you don't include losses. You include losses when calculating total industry profit, you include losses when adding segments together, but you do NOT include losses when you are presenting PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS. Percentage of profits specifically means what percentage of profits. Losses are not profits.

    That's the only point I'm trying to make. Yes, they made more than the total of the market. You can't make more than 100% of revenues, you can't take more than 100% of expenses, and you can't take more that 100% of profits.

    Why do you think that repeating the same circular argument over and over will make ti come true? It doesn't. "You can't have more than 100% of the profits because you can't have more than 100% of the arguments" is an obvious logical fallacy.

    briancpa wrote: »
    I have nothing to say about post #54 because (1) I did not read it and (2) that was not me you were talking to in that post.

    And (3) it proves that I'm right and you're too stubborn to admit it.
  • Reply 136 of 181
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    briancpa wrote: »
    You're right again! My first mistake was debating accounting with someone that knows little about the subject.

    No, your first mistake was pretending to be a CPA when you obviously don't understand even the most basic financial principles like profit.
  • Reply 137 of 181


    LOL loving the Accountants "R" Us TM banter.


     


    Reminds me of when sportspeople get off the field and say "I gave it 110% out there today".

  • Reply 138 of 181
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Sure, let me help you. Using the same methodology you show for Samsung (which, btw, you agree has operating income <$5B, which is exactly what I said in my original post).



     


    Yep, I was finding and posting info to support your theory.   You're welcome  image


     


    Quote:


    Let's take 4Q12, for example. Apple's segment reports show us iPad + iPhone revenue of $41.33B. Apple's operating margin is 31.57%. If the ratio is the same, estimated operating profit = $13.04B. Note: That is actually higher than what the article says it is, without even counting iPods (many of which are connected mobile devices too!).




     


    Apparently they're only talking about handsets.  No tablets.  So that explains it.


     


    $30.66B iPhone revenue @ 40% margin  = $12.264B operating profits.

  • Reply 139 of 181

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post


    LOL loving the Accountants "R" Us TM banter.


     


    Reminds me of when sportspeople get off the field and say "I gave it 110% out there today".



     


    LOL, at some point, the three of them have to say "I'm 34% right, you're 34% right, and the other guy is 34% right"

  • Reply 140 of 181
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post


    LOL loving the Accountants "R" Us TM banter.



     


    My older brother's an actuary.  They're the guys who figure out how to charge for insurance, etc.  Basically, how long each group will live and so forth.


     


    They make accountants look like party animals.


     


    Q:  What's the definition of an actuary?


    A:   He's like an accountant, but without their sense of humor.

Sign In or Register to comment.