Sort of related, why can't I find a P/E for Amazon anymore?
That's because they no longer have one after their last disastrous quarterly earning. Meaning, it's become not meaningful or not applicable. This means the P (price) to (divided by) E (earnings) means the fraction is null value.
PS: You'll see it noted in the links that the negative P/E can be found but they usually just make the negative zero instead. I guess they don't like to kick a man when they're down.
That's because they no longer have one after their last disastrous quarterly earning. Meaning, it's become not meaningful or not applicable This means the P (profits) over (divided by) E (earnings) means the fraction is null value.
In no way are these even close to being the same, much less your erroneous comment claiming that Amazon is on par with Walmart, Target and Safeway combined.
Amazon (2012)
Revenue US$ 61.09 billion
Operating income US$ (676 million) <== Parentheses indicates a loss, not a gain, as you would have us to believe
Walmart (2012)
Revenue US$ 446.950 billion
Operating income US$ 26.558 billion
Apple's digital services alone that they started as a break even business, which have been growing for a decade and in which they invest by the billions, is one of the smallest legs of Apple's business and it alone completely trounces years of of Amazon profits per quarter.
Huh? I was talking about gross margins, not net profit.
That's because they no longer have one after their last disastrous quarterly earning. Meaning, it's become not meaningful or not applicable. This means the P (price) to (divided by) E (earnings) means the fraction is null value.
PS: You'll see it noted in the links that the negative P/E can be found but they usually just make the negative zero instead. I guess they don't like to kick a man when they're down.
The E for AMZN is very, very close to zero. They have never made a significant loss (or, arguably, a significant profit).
Exactly. iOS, MacOS, iDevices, Macs were all developed for free. The data centers were built for free. /s
No, not for free, but for a very small fraction of their revenue. Apple's R&D spend is very small (as a percentage of revenue) compared to competition (if you want to be charitable, you can say that this is because their revenue is so large).
In no way are these even close to being the same, much less your erroneous comment claiming that Amazon is on par with Walmart, Target and Safeway combined.
Amazon (2012)
Revenue US$ 61.09 billion
Operating income US$ (676 million) <== Parentheses indicates a loss, not a gain, as you would have us to believe
Walmart (2012)
Revenue US$ 446.950 billion
Operating income US$ 26.558 billion
Apple's digital services alone that they started as a break even business, which have been growing for a decade and in which they invest by the billions, is one of the smallest legs of Apple's business and it alone completely trounces years of of Amazon profits per quarter.
Yes, this is because (a) the Bezos model has always been long term growth in preference to short term profit, and (b) Apple is gouges its customers : iCloud is at least double the price of the nearest competitor. People use it because they need it for the much vaunted "Apple ecosystem". But the truth is, it is a complete ripoff, and functionality-wise, while it has some nice ones (BackToMyMac), it pretty much sucks compared to Dropbox, which has a much smaller R&D spend, and has no data centers (or at least didn't -- they historically ran on the Amazon cloud!), and is also far cheaper. Google Drive is cheaper still.
Unlike the Apple management, which is hired help in that they sell their stock as soon as they get it, Bezos owns a huge chunk of AMZN (he is far and away the biggest single holder, with some 20% of outstanding shares), so apparently he believes in his model.
Huh? I was talking about gross margins, not net profit.
That's not what you said. You said it was very profitable. Profit is the bottom line - not gross margin.
And even on a gross margin level, I'm still waiting for your evidence that the Kindle has a good gross margin. By all reports, its gross margin is negative, so where's the evidence that it leads to enough ancillary sales to become "very profitable"?
Amazon's gross margin is roughly on par with Walmart and Target and Safeway, however its growth far outstrips any of these. Its capital spend (notice, I did not say R&D -- they are building warehouses, and equipping them with state of the art technology [robots fill your amazon.com boxes more and more these days]. Is its stock fairly valued? No idea, I personally wouldn't buy it, but maybe that's just me. It is ridiculous to compare the gross margins to Apple -- they are in a different business.
Funny, but no one did that - until you started bragging about how profitable the Kindle is - and you never provided any evidence.
BTW, the "growth makes up for losses" meme was discarded ages ago. Growing without making a profit is foolish - and AMZN's profit has declined every year.
[quote name="igriv" url="/t/156691/rumor-amazon-smartphone-to-sport-4-7-inch-display-launch-this-year/40#post_2301376"] Yes, this is because (a) the Bezos model has always been long term growth in preference to short term profit, and (b) Apple is gouges its customers : iCloud is at least double the price of the nearest competitor. People use it because they need it for the much vaunted "Apple ecosystem". But the truth is, it is a complete ripoff, and functionality-wise, while it has some nice ones (BackToMyMac), it pretty much sucks compared to Dropbox, which has a much smaller R&D spend, and has no data centers (or at least didn't -- they historically ran on the Amazon cloud!), and is also far cheaper. Google Drive is cheaper still.[/QUOTE]
So much bullshit from you. What's your deal? You think the only feature of the FREE iCloud has that Dropbox doesn't is Back To My Mac? Surely this has to be trolling and FUD at this point to say this after so long with iCloud, and MobileMe and .Mac before it offering a plethora of features still not found on any other single cloud service. Now I love Dropbox but it's because Dropbox is a service that happens to offer the one service iCloud does not, but in no way to compare Dropbox's R&D with Apple's for their cloud services. iTS? Hello?! You really think the iTS is somehow on par to the size and scope of Dropbox. :no:
PS: It's funny how you were earlier complaining that Apple didn't invest as you claimed Amazon does that with all the "profits" [LOL] and now you are complaining that Apple spends too much when Dropbox has to spend so little for you what claim are [I]comparable[/I] services.
No, not for free, but for a very small fraction of their revenue. Apple's R&D spend is very small (as a percentage of revenue) compared to competition (if you want to be charitable, you can say that this is because their revenue is so large).
Charitable? They made the most money. They can't possibly spend that much on R&D. It's also about efficiency.
How are they gouging their customers? Supply/demand. No one needs to buy Apple.
You know, how they let a product sit past when one wants it updated because they are "milking' their loyal customers for more profit, and how they update a product before one wants it updated because they are "milking" their loyal customers by obsolescing their products too soon for profit.
How are they gouging their customers? Supply/demand. No one needs to buy Apple.
You know, how they let a product sit past when one wants it updated because they are "milking' their loyal customers for more profit, and how they update a product before one wants it updated because they are "milking" their loyal customers by obsolescing their products too soon for profit.
Comments
Sort of related, why can't I find a P/E for Amazon anymore?
That's because they no longer have one after their last disastrous quarterly earning. Meaning, it's become not meaningful or not applicable. This means the P (price) to (divided by) E (earnings) means the fraction is null value.
PS: You'll see it noted in the links that the negative P/E can be found but they usually just make the negative zero instead. I guess they don't like to kick a man when they're down.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's because they no longer have one after their last disastrous quarterly earning. Meaning, it's become not meaningful or not applicable This means the P (profits) over (divided by) E (earnings) means the fraction is null value.
*snort*
That's what I thought. Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
In no way are these even close to being the same, much less your erroneous comment claiming that Amazon is on par with Walmart, Target and Safeway combined.
Amazon (2012)
Revenue US$ 61.09 billion
Operating income US$ (676 million) <== Parentheses indicates a loss, not a gain, as you would have us to believe
Walmart (2012)
Revenue US$ 446.950 billion
Operating income US$ 26.558 billion
Apple's digital services alone that they started as a break even business, which have been growing for a decade and in which they invest by the billions, is one of the smallest legs of Apple's business and it alone completely trounces years of of Amazon profits per quarter.
Huh? I was talking about gross margins, not net profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's because they no longer have one after their last disastrous quarterly earning. Meaning, it's become not meaningful or not applicable. This means the P (price) to (divided by) E (earnings) means the fraction is null value.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/negativeeps.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–earnings_ratio#Interpretation
PS: You'll see it noted in the links that the negative P/E can be found but they usually just make the negative zero instead. I guess they don't like to kick a man when they're down.
The E for AMZN is very, very close to zero. They have never made a significant loss (or, arguably, a significant profit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Exactly. iOS, MacOS, iDevices, Macs were all developed for free. The data centers were built for free. /s
No, not for free, but for a very small fraction of their revenue. Apple's R&D spend is very small (as a percentage of revenue) compared to competition (if you want to be charitable, you can say that this is because their revenue is so large).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
In no way are these even close to being the same, much less your erroneous comment claiming that Amazon is on par with Walmart, Target and Safeway combined.
Amazon (2012)
Revenue US$ 61.09 billion
Operating income US$ (676 million) <== Parentheses indicates a loss, not a gain, as you would have us to believe
Walmart (2012)
Revenue US$ 446.950 billion
Operating income US$ 26.558 billion
Apple's digital services alone that they started as a break even business, which have been growing for a decade and in which they invest by the billions, is one of the smallest legs of Apple's business and it alone completely trounces years of of Amazon profits per quarter.
Yes, this is because (a) the Bezos model has always been long term growth in preference to short term profit, and (b) Apple is gouges its customers : iCloud is at least double the price of the nearest competitor. People use it because they need it for the much vaunted "Apple ecosystem". But the truth is, it is a complete ripoff, and functionality-wise, while it has some nice ones (BackToMyMac), it pretty much sucks compared to Dropbox, which has a much smaller R&D spend, and has no data centers (or at least didn't -- they historically ran on the Amazon cloud!), and is also far cheaper. Google Drive is cheaper still.
Unlike the Apple management, which is hired help in that they sell their stock as soon as they get it, Bezos owns a huge chunk of AMZN (he is far and away the biggest single holder, with some 20% of outstanding shares), so apparently he believes in his model.
That's not what you said. You said it was very profitable. Profit is the bottom line - not gross margin.
And even on a gross margin level, I'm still waiting for your evidence that the Kindle has a good gross margin. By all reports, its gross margin is negative, so where's the evidence that it leads to enough ancillary sales to become "very profitable"?
Funny, but no one did that - until you started bragging about how profitable the Kindle is - and you never provided any evidence.
BTW, the "growth makes up for losses" meme was discarded ages ago. Growing without making a profit is foolish - and AMZN's profit has declined every year.
Yes, this is because (a) the Bezos model has always been long term growth in preference to short term profit, and (b) Apple is gouges its customers : iCloud is at least double the price of the nearest competitor. People use it because they need it for the much vaunted "Apple ecosystem". But the truth is, it is a complete ripoff, and functionality-wise, while it has some nice ones (BackToMyMac), it pretty much sucks compared to Dropbox, which has a much smaller R&D spend, and has no data centers (or at least didn't -- they historically ran on the Amazon cloud!), and is also far cheaper. Google Drive is cheaper still.[/QUOTE]
So much bullshit from you. What's your deal? You think the only feature of the FREE iCloud has that Dropbox doesn't is Back To My Mac? Surely this has to be trolling and FUD at this point to say this after so long with iCloud, and MobileMe and .Mac before it offering a plethora of features still not found on any other single cloud service. Now I love Dropbox but it's because Dropbox is a service that happens to offer the one service iCloud does not, but in no way to compare Dropbox's R&D with Apple's for their cloud services. iTS? Hello?! You really think the iTS is somehow on par to the size and scope of Dropbox. :no:
PS: It's funny how you were earlier complaining that Apple didn't invest as you claimed Amazon does that with all the "profits" [LOL] and now you are complaining that Apple spends too much when Dropbox has to spend so little for you what claim are [I]comparable[/I] services.
Charitable? They made the most money. They can't possibly spend that much on R&D. It's also about efficiency.
How are they gouging their customers? Supply/demand. No one needs to buy Apple.
You know, how they let a product sit past when one wants it updated because they are "milking' their loyal customers for more profit, and how they update a product before one wants it updated because they are "milking" their loyal customers by obsolescing their products too soon for profit.
You know, how they let a product sit past when one wants it updated because they are "milking' their loyal customers for more profit, and how they update a product before one wants it updated because they are "milking" their loyal customers by obsolescing their products too soon for profit.
I can't believe I missed this earlier. Though I guess since I can't do anything about it, that's understandable.
Originally Posted by igriv
(b) Apple is gouges its customers
I'm about to do some gouging of my own.
iCloud is at least double the price of the nearest competitor.
Let's see, free divided by two equals…
…the much vaunted "Apple ecosystem"… …it is a complete ripoff… …it pretty much sucks… …has no data centers… …the Apple management… …is hired help…
Leave. Please. Do us all a favor.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
why can't I find a P/E for Amazon anymore?
Because you can't divide by zero.
Amazon's net loss in 2012 was $39 million. That is some impressive "making it up in volume."