kevliu1980 wrote: »
<1. BS snipped>
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?
Falling to insults is always a sign of a weak argument. However you are correct that this is excellent marketing execution from Apple in setting these tiers. Taking a tangent in implying Apple doesn't increase base storage to avoid a global NAND storage is hilarious.
The BOM and retail prices are below:
16GB: $198.70 vs. $649
32GB: $208.10 vs. $749
64GB: $218.30 vs. $849
Again I'm not saying Apple doesn't have a right to do this - they certainly do. What I don't understand are the fellow consumers here trying to make an argument that I instead of being irritated by this, I should instead be happy. Understanding does not have to equate to support.
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.
How is a 33% increase in sales considered "flat"??
Basic math - take 30 Million and multiply by .333... you'll get 10 Million. Now add that to the original number(30 Million) and VOILA, you get 40 Million. I think ANYONE(regardless of what side of the fence you are on) would agree that an increase of 33% in sales is quite an achievement.
It's because people here are NOT consumers... they are "followers". Big difference.
Basic math - take 30 Million and multiply by .333... you'll get 10 Million. Now add that to the original number(30 Million) and VOILA, you get 40 Million.
Why not just multiply by 1.3?
Want to earn money & help your family without going anywhere.........I make $60h - $92h...how? I'm working online now its ur turn to make money at home...................... Buzz55.?om
Just open Home tab nd make money
You’re comparing Apple’s net profit to Samsung Electronics’s operational profit. The article points this out, but you ran with this anyway.
Apple’s net is still ~.5B larger than all of Samsung Electronics, but is much larger than Samsung Mobile, which is the part that does what Apple does, and not the part that build’s Apple’s chips and refrigerators, toasters and toilet seats.
Also, provide a citation showing GS4 or other high end phones are selling at a faster rate.
The article cites SAMSUNG as saying THEY AREN’T in its audited financial statements. Also: apologize and slink away troll.
I think that term has already been trademarked in Apple's portfolio.
Wrong over and over. "Apple's share price tanked because its earnings weren't good enough" - no, welcome to the stock market. There are lots of reasons for selling up and down that are not apparently rational with reasons that are not immediately evident. AAPL basically sits unchanged before and after.
Apple’s revenue hasn’t reached above 2012 because Apple is aggressively stomping Android out of relevant existence. Google is focusing on TV and Glass. Apple is focusing on cars. We will see which strategy makes more sense: the one from a company that doesn’t know anything about hardware and can’t sell it in quantity even at a loss and backed by a wildly enthusiastic army of ideologues, or the company that has sold virtually everything it has imagined into existence over the past 30 years at high margins.
First clever thing I’ve seen you write, thanks that made me smile.
The reason the 32GB and 64GB are expensive is because they are SUBSIDIZING the 16GB phones. If all 3 phones were sold at the exact same gross margin the prices would look more like this:
16GB - $699
32GB - $749
64GB - $799
This happens ALL THE TIME. Look at the car industry. They make all their profits on upgrades and add on packages. You can buy the base model with no upgrades. Do you really think the leather interior and sun roof costs $4000?
Basically Apple is giving the 16GB buyers a break on pricing. Its not that the 32G is expensive its that the 16GB is a great deal. Bottom line is Apple can't price the entry level price about $649. They tried with the first iPhone and it failed. So the alternative is to charge less for the 16GB and make up the difference with the high memory models.
I've stated this numerous times on this site and every single time the person who says the 32/64 GB are expensive totally ignores this reason.
Finally someone who agrees with my viewpoint.
It isn't the higher GB models that r overpriced.
It is the lower GB ones that are underpriced.
Also lumped in the next two companies who are making money: Huawei and Lenovo. Past them volumes start to get pretty low.
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.
No it compares Apple to Samsung Mobile (which is the same business as Apple: phones, tablets, PCs, MP3 players etc). Similar with LG (which breaks out PC/phones from things like appliances) and Nokia Devices and Services (the part MSFT is going to buy, and excluding Nokia's only moderately profitable maps and network gear divisions, which could be included without making a difference).
So no, it’s not misleading at all. Also, please keep comments civil. It’s not necessary to call somebody a "retard" for failing to understand an accounting term even if they are being a bit of a dick.
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.
Operating profits are not net profits, so no, you were wrong. And you clearly compared them because you said Samsung was 2B greater.
Apple reports both, but reporters only cite net profits (after taxes). Samsung and other companies only detail their operational profits, which aren’t the same thing and comparing them is stupid.
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.
Samsung said it planned to sell 100 M GS4s, sparking the whole "this is the end for iPhone" meme that some people still cling to. That is not going to happen.
As far as how many million at what month, keep in mind you are basing your numbers on rumored "shipments" or estimates, none of which are a) sales or b) accurate to a particular date.
What is clear is that Samsung’s high end sales aren’t growing. It’s been warning about that all year, and the SAYS SO in its earnings. You can’t argue against that with any credibility whatsoever, particularly when your facts from from BSland.
LOL, because the "vast majority" has NO idea what NAND costs.
How much does Coke cost to produce, and why does a .5L bottle often cost more than a 2L bottle?
What about fabric, or digital content, or anything else where you are paying for design or IP and not raw components.
Don’t continue to be so opaquely stupid.
No that’s not true. Samsung doesn’t announce sales numbers of anything really. It has occasionally announced shipments (or planned shipment goals), which provide no basis for comparing the pace of sales.
But we don’t have to argue about sales rates. The GS4 has been out for long enough to have made a difference or not. It has not. And Samsung itself is stating to its investors that high end sales are "about the same," and that volume growth is coming solely from mass market cheap phones.
Strategy Analytics twisted that to imply that Note 3 was part of the volume growth, but carefully avoided lying by not actually saying that.
You are multiplying bullshit numbers. Don’t need to; the company with accountants working on the situation came out and told you that Samsung’s high end phones are selling flat, not 33% up. That is clearly not the same thing.
Apple, meanwhile, is making more money than Samsung AND saw high end sales growth of 26%, despite all the profitless Android devices being thrown into the market at or near cost. That is quite an achievement.
That is quite an achievement