1. I find it a bit disingenuous to lump in sales and "profits" from bit players who aren't turning profits to Samsung's numbers and then compare it to Apple. The only numbers that matter are the two companies making any real money - Samsung to Apple. It would be akin to saying Samsung makes infinite times more profit than all the other Android manufacturers combined - what exactly is the point?
2. As a shareholder of Apple - I agree with their stock buyback and dividend changes over the last year to return more value to shareholders as they don't have any other outlets to spend such a large amount of cash.
As a consumer of Apple - it's a bit irksome that their $100 memory tiering increments is probably the biggest driver of this free cash (the margins of a 64GB iPhone are massive compared to the 16GB version). I'd rather they give some of that money back to me as a consumer (maybe $50 increments) and resultingly give less back via stock buyback and dividends.
3. Flatlining or even decreasing profit is an ongoing concern, even as Apple prints money. I still think Apple is undervalued in terms of real value (cash on hand, ongoing free cash flow), but I don't think they're undervalued in terms of profit growth. I believe it's now two quarters y/o/y that profit is flat.
"Lastly, it's a good thing Samsung sells more than just phones eh?"
No I didn't. It again shows that people like you can not comprehend the original article. Selling more than just phones is irrelevant to every point in the article. Please open your tiny brain to allow that to filter in a little.
If the article were titled "Apple phone sales dropping, should begin building vacuums, cars, houses, toothbrushes and more to compete and have higher profits than everyone else" than I could see your point.
Let me spell it out. The article was comparing PHONES to PHONES to PHONES and the profits thereof.
Either way you slice it 9.5 billion profit on 121 million phones versus 7.5 billion profit on 33.6 million phones is pretty simple math to me. (Of course not breaking down either companies profit into specific products of any kind.)
Actually both figures are for overall profits. But Samsung's figure is for OPERATING, before taxes, while Apple's figure is net of taxes.
The article makes the mistake of comparing Apple overall profits to smartphone division profits of other companies. That's intentionally misleading, which is not surprising given this is Appleinsider.
LMAO... nice how he BLASTS me for not reading, when he clearly didn't read EVERYTHING I wrote. Samsung does INDEED sell more "items" than Apple. Regardless... profits are profits.
"The result is that Samsung is making much less money building far more phones and watching its sales trend toward "mass market" low end sales while its high end fails to grow at all. "
WRONG - The Note 3 and GS4(Samsung's "high end") are both selling at a faster rate than the Note 2 and GS3 that came before them.
Lastly, it's a good thing Samsung sells more than just phones eh?
Guess which of the two companies had two billion dollars MORE profit than the other?
The S4 took 6 months to reach 40 million. Are you saying the S3 was even slower. They claimed they presold 10 M so they must have sold 5 M/ month after that. Also, the articles you posted refer to their entire business including chips and screen fab, washing machines, TV and industrial businesses. Not comparable.
1. I find it a bit disingenuous to lump in sales and "profits" from bit players who aren't turning profits to Samsung's numbers and then compare it to Apple. The only numbers that matter are the two companies making any real money - Samsung to Apple. It would be akin to saying Samsung makes infinite times more profit than all the other Android manufacturers combined - what exactly is the point?
2. As a shareholder of Apple - I agree with their stock buyback and dividend changes over the last year to return more value to shareholders as they don't have any other outlets to spend such a large amount of cash.
As a consumer of Apple - it's a bit irksome that their $100 memory tiering increments is probably the biggest driver of this free cash (the margins of a 64GB iPhone are massive compared to the 16GB version). I'd rather they give some of that money back to me as a consumer (maybe $50 increments) and resultingly give less back via stock buyback and dividends.
3. Flatlining or even decreasing profit is an ongoing concern, even as Apple prints money. I still think Apple is undervalued in terms of real value (cash on hand, ongoing free cash flow), but I don't think they're undervalued in terms of profit growth. I believe it's now two quarters y/o/y that profit is flat.
1. Why is it disingenuous? People lump Android in together vs the iPhone in terms of market share. Why not profit share?
2. No one is forcing you to get the larger capacity. Stick with 16 GB.
All valid points and a good article. Thanks for writing an article that breaks nows the numbers but provides for actual analysis of what they actually mean. Most Apple ANALysts are more interested in reporting any doom and gloom numbers they can find. It is no coincidence that the first letters of that word is "anal" because most of them are dumb asses. But this really doesn't appear to be because they are stupid but rather many seem to have an actual agenda to do their best to run AAPL down likely for profit taking, simply a bias developed many years ago, or some other reason. Many behave like paid employees of Google or Samsung desperately trying to make any Apple growth appear to be an anomaly.
Hey Dan, just curious if you have ever watched this bald douche over at Yahoo Finance. I don't know his name and this link is far from the worst one. Every (and I do mean every) single time he interviews anyone about Apple he is the most hateful and angry "journalist" I have seen. I use the term journalist very loosely. It is clear from his questions and comments that he knows very little at all about technology to begin with. He seems to really hate Apple with a passion. While you are calling some of these reports out maybe you might want to consider calling out specific journalists as well who have a track record of consistently bashing Apple for no reason.
No I didn't. It again shows that people like you can not comprehend the original article. Selling more than just phones is irrelevant to every point in the article. Please open your tiny brain to allow that to filter in a little.
If the article were titled "Apple phone sales dropping, should begin building vacuums, cars, houses, toothbrushes and more to compete and have higher profits than everyone else" than I could see your point.
Let me spell it out. The article was comparing PHONES to PHONES to PHONES and the profits thereof.
Geesh you trolls are incessant.
You sound like a very unhappy person.
... and his/her preface still explains all of that.
1. Why is it disingenuous? People lump Android in together vs the iPhone in terms of market share. Why not profit share?
2. No one is forcing you to get the larger capacity. Stick with 16 GB.
1. Because lumping in companies losing money is nonsensical in comparing profits. The equivalent would be lumping all the losses in the mobile/tablet space along with Apple and writing that Samsung makes about as much profit as the rest of EVERYONE ELSE combined. OMG!)*(#%(*)#. Dubious headlines work in both ways and are stupid both ways.
2. I find these statements utterly ridiculous - is there something wrong with wanting more storage and not wanting to get reamed paying for it? Apple, as a corporation, it doing the right thing to maximize profits in dragging out 16GB as their base and keeping their $100 increments, because they can due to their loyal users and robust ecosystem. However that shouldn't make us, their customers, happy that Apple can use this strength to stand pat while the industry is moving to 32GB base and/or cheaper increments.
Should I, as a consumer, simply be happy that I'm forced to pay $100 more just to get a 32GB iPhone while that money simply gets returned to shareholders via the stock buyback and dividends? Why exactly should I be content with that?
1. Because lumping in companies losing money is nonsensical in comparing profits. The equivalent would be lumping all the losses in the mobile/tablet space along with Apple and writing that Samsung makes about as much profit as the rest of EVERYONE ELSE combined. OMG!)*(#%(*)#. Dubious headlines work in both ways and are stupid both ways.
2. I find these statements utterly ridiculous - is there something wrong with wanting more storage and not wanting to get reamed paying for it? Apple, as a corporation, it doing the right thing to maximize profits in dragging out 16GB as their base and keeping their $100 increments, because they can due to their loyal users and robust ecosystem. However that shouldn't make us, their customers, happy that Apple can use this strength to stand pat while the industry is moving to 32GB base and/or cheaper increments.
Should I, as a consumer, simply be happy that I'm forced to pay $100 more just to get a 32GB iPhone while that money simply gets returned to shareholders via the stock buyback and dividends? Why exactly should I be content with that?
1. Seriously? There is no logical reason to lump other companies with Apple and separate Sammy.
2. If the iPhone doesn't work for you, go to Android. Again, you're the consumer. You get to decide what you want to use.
That is why other companies can always grow as they earn too little coz they sell their rubbish with no profit at all .
I think you are incorrect, but I am willing to be "shown up" in front of everyone on this message board.... can you name me a company* that is selling "with no profit at all" and is growing??
*(besides Amazon - I realize their shares keep going up without making a profit, but are they actually making money? Or are their shares just going up because Wall Street likes them???)
…wanting more storage and not wanting to get reamed paying for it? Should I, as a consumer, simply be happy that I’m forced to pay $100 more… Why exactly should I be content with that?
Studies show that the vast majority thinks the pricing is fair.
My take away from this is Samsung S3 to S4 sales have been flat.
That shows me there is almost ZERO loyalty to the brand. If 90% of Galaxy users upgraded they should have seen at least 25% growth. But it seems an equal amount of users are dropping out as there are new ones adding.
Samsung's announced sales numbers of the S4 are up about 35% over the comparable time-frame from last years S3 intro, 40 million S4 to 30 million S3. That's if you believe Samsung of course.
Comments
Apple doesn't jump off a cliff just because Samsung is jumping and because analysts want Apple to jump.
Analysts are crazy. They want Apple to give up making profits like the rest of the competition.
Carl Icahn is crazy too. He wants Apple to go $150 BILLION in DEBT so he can profit like a parasite off Apple.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/24/5026224/samsung-announces-9-56-billion-in-profit-for-q3-2013
Guess which of the two companies had two billion dollars MORE profit than the other?
That's 9.56 billion OPERATING profit versus Apple's 10 billion OPERATING profit. You just compared operating to net profit.
2. As a shareholder of Apple - I agree with their stock buyback and dividend changes over the last year to return more value to shareholders as they don't have any other outlets to spend such a large amount of cash.
As a consumer of Apple - it's a bit irksome that their $100 memory tiering increments is probably the biggest driver of this free cash (the margins of a 64GB iPhone are massive compared to the 16GB version). I'd rather they give some of that money back to me as a consumer (maybe $50 increments) and resultingly give less back via stock buyback and dividends.
3. Flatlining or even decreasing profit is an ongoing concern, even as Apple prints money. I still think Apple is undervalued in terms of real value (cash on hand, ongoing free cash flow), but I don't think they're undervalued in terms of profit growth. I believe it's now two quarters y/o/y that profit is flat.
Samsung is in a race to the bottom. Good luck with that.
Apple doesn't jump off a cliff just because Samsung is jumping and because analysts want Apple to jump.
Analysts are crazy. They want Apple to give up making profits like the rest of the competition.
Carl Icahn is crazy too. He wants Apple to go $150 BILLION in DEBT so he can profit like a parasite off Apple.
I don't think analysts want Apple to give up making profits. I think analysts are wondering how Apple is going to grow the company from this point.
You must have missed the preface to those links:
"Lastly, it's a good thing Samsung sells more than just phones eh?"
No I didn't. It again shows that people like you can not comprehend the original article. Selling more than just phones is irrelevant to every point in the article. Please open your tiny brain to allow that to filter in a little.
If the article were titled "Apple phone sales dropping, should begin building vacuums, cars, houses, toothbrushes and more to compete and have higher profits than everyone else" than I could see your point.
Let me spell it out. The article was comparing PHONES to PHONES to PHONES and the profits thereof.
Geesh you trolls are incessant.
Either way you slice it 9.5 billion profit on 121 million phones versus 7.5 billion profit on 33.6 million phones is pretty simple math to me. (Of course not breaking down either companies profit into specific products of any kind.)
Actually both figures are for overall profits. But Samsung's figure is for OPERATING, before taxes, while Apple's figure is net of taxes.
The article makes the mistake of comparing Apple overall profits to smartphone division profits of other companies. That's intentionally misleading, which is not surprising given this is Appleinsider.
LMAO... nice how he BLASTS me for not reading, when he clearly didn't read EVERYTHING I wrote. Samsung does INDEED sell more "items" than Apple. Regardless... profits are profits.
1. Why is it disingenuous? People lump Android in together vs the iPhone in terms of market share. Why not profit share?
2. No one is forcing you to get the larger capacity. Stick with 16 GB.
All valid points and a good article. Thanks for writing an article that breaks nows the numbers but provides for actual analysis of what they actually mean. Most Apple ANALysts are more interested in reporting any doom and gloom numbers they can find. It is no coincidence that the first letters of that word is "anal" because most of them are dumb asses. But this really doesn't appear to be because they are stupid but rather many seem to have an actual agenda to do their best to run AAPL down likely for profit taking, simply a bias developed many years ago, or some other reason. Many behave like paid employees of Google or Samsung desperately trying to make any Apple growth appear to be an anomaly.
Hey Dan, just curious if you have ever watched this bald douche over at Yahoo Finance. I don't know his name and this link is far from the worst one. Every (and I do mean every) single time he interviews anyone about Apple he is the most hateful and angry "journalist" I have seen. I use the term journalist very loosely. It is clear from his questions and comments that he knows very little at all about technology to begin with. He seems to really hate Apple with a passion. While you are calling some of these reports out maybe you might want to consider calling out specific journalists as well who have a track record of consistently bashing Apple for no reason.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/suddenly-microsoft-not-google-apple-hates-132745760.html
No I didn't. It again shows that people like you can not comprehend the original article. Selling more than just phones is irrelevant to every point in the article. Please open your tiny brain to allow that to filter in a little.
If the article were titled "Apple phone sales dropping, should begin building vacuums, cars, houses, toothbrushes and more to compete and have higher profits than everyone else" than I could see your point.
Let me spell it out. The article was comparing PHONES to PHONES to PHONES and the profits thereof.
Geesh you trolls are incessant.
You sound like a very unhappy person.
... and his/her preface still explains all of that.
1. Why is it disingenuous? People lump Android in together vs the iPhone in terms of market share. Why not profit share?
2. No one is forcing you to get the larger capacity. Stick with 16 GB.
1. Because lumping in companies losing money is nonsensical in comparing profits. The equivalent would be lumping all the losses in the mobile/tablet space along with Apple and writing that Samsung makes about as much profit as the rest of EVERYONE ELSE combined. OMG!)*(#%(*)#. Dubious headlines work in both ways and are stupid both ways.
2. I find these statements utterly ridiculous - is there something wrong with wanting more storage and not wanting to get reamed paying for it? Apple, as a corporation, it doing the right thing to maximize profits in dragging out 16GB as their base and keeping their $100 increments, because they can due to their loyal users and robust ecosystem. However that shouldn't make us, their customers, happy that Apple can use this strength to stand pat while the industry is moving to 32GB base and/or cheaper increments.
Should I, as a consumer, simply be happy that I'm forced to pay $100 more just to get a 32GB iPhone while that money simply gets returned to shareholders via the stock buyback and dividends? Why exactly should I be content with that?
The S4 took 6 months to reach 40 million. Are you saying the S3 was even slower.......
Yes it was... it had only sold 30 Million @ 6 months. And the Note 3 has sold 5 Million in a month, whereas it took two months for the Note 2.
1. Seriously? There is no logical reason to lump other companies with Apple and separate Sammy.
2. If the iPhone doesn't work for you, go to Android. Again, you're the consumer. You get to decide what you want to use.
That is why other companies can always grow as they earn too little coz they sell their rubbish with no profit at all .
I think you are incorrect, but I am willing to be "shown up" in front of everyone on this message board.... can you name me a company* that is selling "with no profit at all" and is growing??
*(besides Amazon - I realize their shares keep going up without making a profit, but are they actually making money? Or are their shares just going up because Wall Street likes them???)
…wanting more storage and not wanting to get reamed paying for it? Should I, as a consumer, simply be happy that I’m forced to pay $100 more… Why exactly should I be content with that?
Studies show that the vast majority thinks the pricing is fair.
Studies show that the vast majority thinks the pricing is fair.
LOL, because the "vast majority" has NO idea what NAND costs.
Analysts:
—Apple: Losing because they're winning!
—Samsung: Winning because they're losing!
What we ignore is Samsung is selling phones
That is bad. Toooo bad!
Samsung's announced sales numbers of the S4 are up about 35% over the comparable time-frame from last years S3 intro, 40 million S4 to 30 million S3. That's if you believe Samsung of course.