Both Cook and Sculley were/have been increasingly very profitable. Both men followed on the heels of successful product introductions by Steve Jobs. Both men did not/have not introduced any new product categories (actually, Sculley introduced the first laptop).
I've seen one of Tim Cook's forays into developing a new product, the 5c, and I'm hoping that isn't any indication of the success of any new product categories.
As far as Apple's financial success under Cook... I'm betting there are at least a couple of other guys on the planet that could have done that much. The real test will be Cook's ability to grow the company beyond its current boundaries... in the same manner as Jobs.
So, yes... I need more evidence of Cook's ability to grow the company. I already know that he can keep the products alive that were developed under Jobs.
Give the guy some time. Three years is not that long. Even SJ took longer than that between new product categories. Remember, it was six years between the iPod and iPhone. We didn't all lose our minds then.
Give the guy some time. Three years is not that long. Even SJ took longer than that between new product categories. Remember, it was six years between the iPod and iPhone. We didn't all lose our minds then.
Oh, I never said his time is up. He's keeping the company very healthy. Healthy enough that he can make a couple of mistakes and not do too much damage. I'm hoping that he's around long enough for a new product category introduction. I really want to see how that goes.
Both Cook and Sculley were/have been increasingly very profitable. Both men followed on the heels of successful product introductions by Steve Jobs. Both men did not/have not introduced any new product categories (actually, Sculley introduced the first laptop).
I've seen one of Tim Cook's forays into developing a new product, the 5c, and I'm hoping that isn't any indication of the success of any new product categories.
As far as Apple's financial success under Cook... I'm betting there are at least a couple of other guys on the planet that could have done that much. The real test will be Cook's ability to grow the company beyond its current boundaries... in the same manner as Jobs.
So, yes... I need more evidence of Cook's ability to grow the company. I already know that he can keep the products alive that were developed under Jobs.
haha! oh great. two old guys, both easily confused.... this explains a lot! Well, aren't we going to have some fun then ... ))
As to your last bit there, I'm not sure it will ever be TC's role to be "the next Steve Jobs"... I think it's going to be a lot more of a team effort from here on out, with TC managing the ship and keeping it running smoothly while the creators go nuts and cook it down to the essentials... then *pop* we'll get a new product, and/or more incremental (but significant) advances in familiar things, or new connectivity where there wasn't any before. And every now and then, they'll surprise and amaze us (like the Mac Pro, which I believe is actually an interesting harbinger of things to come).
I don't think they're bluffing about pulling out the stops this year on new product categories, etc... something very interesting is afoot.... I'm sure of it.
The way my computers and devices play together now, it really is easy to take for granted. It's amazing. Transparent. So intuitive it's easy to overlook just how natural they make it all seem.
This is the stuff that's also easily overlooked when handing out credit for guiding the company. iCloud is turning into something extraordinary, one baby step at a time. One minute you're not looking and the next, there it is... totally functional, fully integrated across all your devices and invaluable to your daily life.....
Very, very hard to do with saturated markets, without some amazing new phone, or a new line of revenue. They need to invest heavily in ipayments and iTV, and offer 3 different size iPhones. That's where their growth will be found.
Wrong: smart phone market is not saturated. Please share your source.
Right: Apple will monetize from their customer base...but only if it brings/returns some value to customers.
Right: 3 different size phones. We'll see that in 2014. I'll bet anyone $100 in monopoly money that we'll see a larger (like 4.8" iPhone) in 2014. Any takers? :-)
I think so too. Interesting the difference here between the defence of a new CEO (/manager) and a soccer site I post on where the last charismatic leader took the team to untold heights and the new guy has destroyed that legacy in 6 months. There there is nothing but criticism of the new guy - here Jobs is clearly replaceable by an accountant type.
51M.
We all know that Samsung doesn't sell a single unit. They just ship them to be stockpiled in the shops.
oh but they are. Samsung just doesn't report it. They don't subtract "returns" from "the number shipped".
Apple sold 51 MILLION phones, with roughly 40 million of those estimated to be the flagship 5s model. Samsung sold 9 million of their S4.
40 sold, vs 9 shipped.
If Samsung only shipped 9 million to their warehouses, there aren't many returning yet. Wait until next quarter!
I would have thought by now that people would understand that Apple also reports shipment to channel ( "sell in" in their reports and QA). As for Samsung if there are returns you have to take a charge or draw down channel inventory.
I would have thought by now that people would understand that Apple also reports shipment to channel ( "sell in" in their reports and QA). As for Samsung if there are returns you have to take a charge or draw down channel inventory.
I was being mildly facetious about the warehouse thing....
As for the rest...
Apple's "shipments to channel" aren't what we're referring to exclusively when we talk about Apple sales. They differentiate between sales and shipped to channel (channel being 'third party retailers' like Best Buy and Target?). They are very different than their competition in this regard, in part because of how they manage inventory. Do any of these analyses quoted around here take into account draw downs in channel inventory vs revenue? That kind of reportage is too granular for the average reader I think.
When talking about "sales", Apple sells through pretty much everything they make and ship, and within a couple of weeks of shipping it. We know this because they only keep a couple of weeks of 'inventory' on hand. They don't end up stacked up with a backlog.
Do we get a breakdown of "returns" that Apple receives (assuming either defective units or an unsatisfied customer)? I don't remember seeing it in the line items... but we do get the bottom line. That says that Apple is selling a HUGE number of "premium" phones (it's all they sell) compared to any other single competitor.
And profitably too.
By a factor of roughly 4 to 1 "shipped" (and no doubt even higher "sold", since there was NO standing 5s inventory available for a couple of months) vs the Galaxy S4, if what I've seen is correct...
I would have thought by now that people would understand that Apple also reports shipment to channel ( "sell in" in their reports and QA). As for Samsung if there are returns you have to take a charge or draw down channel inventory.
By South Korean rules?
I somehow have always assumed Samsung stays off the NYSE to avoid the awkwardness of the United States' reporting requirements.
I was being mildly facetious about the warehouse thing....
As for the rest...
Apple's "shipments to channel" aren't what we're referring to exclusively when we talk about Apple sales. They differentiate between sales and shipped to channel (channel being 'third party retailers' like Best Buy and Target?). They are very different than their competition in this regard, in part because of how they manage inventory. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Do any of these analyses quoted around here take into account draw downs in channel inventory vs revenue? That kind of reportage is too granular for the average reader I think.</span>
When talking about "sales", Apple sells through pretty much everything they make and ship, and within a couple of weeks of shipping it. We know this because they only keep a couple of weeks of 'inventory' on hand. They don't end up stacked up with a backlog.
Do we get a breakdown of "returns" that Apple receives (assuming either defective units or an unsatisfied customer)? I don't remember seeing it in the line items... but we do get the bottom line. That says that Apple is selling a HUGE number of "premium" phones (it's all they sell) compared to any other single competitor.
And profitably too.
By a factor of roughly 4 to 1 "shipped" (and no doubt even higher "sold", since there was NO standing 5s inventory available for a couple of months) vs the Galaxy S4, if what I've seen is correct...
Apple reports shipment to channel. Let's be clear about that. Yes they have just a few weeks inventory, I don't doubt that Samsung do as well. If either Apple's or Samsung's sell through were lower than expected then inventory builds up and sales to channel suffer in the next quarter. In fact Apple often have that problem. If there are massive amount of returns either the retailer handles it ( adding to channel inventory) if the return can be sold again, or if it is faulty or the retailer can never sell its a cost, a charge to the manufacturer. Which appears in the books as a write down. Don't see that for either company.
All this means that Samsung's 9 million sales to channel are just a few weeks from being sales to customers. Like Apple.
If there are massive amount of returns either the retailer handles it ( adding to channel inventory) if the return can be sold again, or if it is faulty or the retailer can never sell its a cost, a charge to the manufacturer. Which appears in the books as a write down. Don't see that for either company.
All this means that Samsung's 9 million sales to channel are just a few weeks from being sales to customers. Like Apple.
The number that I was surprised by was the cash flow. I was unaware of the specific definition for that and looked it up. This is the total earnings plus expenses such as depreciation that are taken out as expenses. I think this is a better measure of Apple's income given how conservative they are about paying down and writing off expenses. Remember the whole software expense write off? Apple has a 26% marginal tax rate. Any cash flow that can become an expense is less taxes to pay. That is basic business management when cash is not needed for any reinvestment that offers more than a 26% return rate. Apple's current cash position and strong intellectual portfolio are the reasons they can be so aggressive here. $22.7 is one huge pile of cash from one quarter of operations. I wonder where that ranks on records for public companies?
Yes, I noted that huge cash flow also. And, unless I've misread the figures, Google's cash flow in its recently released earnings was just under $3 billion. This strikes me as a telling disparity that would benefit from Mr. Dilger's sterling analysis.
In summary, Apple's free cash flow was $23 billion, Google's $3 billion.
In related market news, it may be of interest to those recently complaining of profitless Amazon's rise versus profitable Apple's pummeling... Amazon's stock is getting killed right now. Down 8% today along wig the broad market selloff (aka "correction").
OK, so my prediction was a little off. I said it would be recovering within days... it took a couple of weeks instead.
Still it's recovering quickly, as I expected. At $543 today, after a week of steady increases.
I expect that trend will continue. To those who ranted on about what a failure the reporting/guidance picture was, how the stock is "dead money" for the next three months, how there is nothing in the underpinnings to justify any gains (and others who declared $450 as the likely bottom), I say....
Nah. The numbers said the drop was very very temporary. The coming annual report on the 28th should solidify the picture. Great things yet to come, and don't be surprised if the stock hits $570 or higher.....
Comments
Sorry... I'm old... I get confused.
I'm not comparing Cook to Sculley per se.
Both Cook and Sculley were/have been increasingly very profitable. Both men followed on the heels of successful product introductions by Steve Jobs. Both men did not/have not introduced any new product categories (actually, Sculley introduced the first laptop).
I've seen one of Tim Cook's forays into developing a new product, the 5c, and I'm hoping that isn't any indication of the success of any new product categories.
As far as Apple's financial success under Cook... I'm betting there are at least a couple of other guys on the planet that could have done that much. The real test will be Cook's ability to grow the company beyond its current boundaries... in the same manner as Jobs.
So, yes... I need more evidence of Cook's ability to grow the company. I already know that he can keep the products alive that were developed under Jobs.
Give the guy some time. Three years is not that long. Even SJ took longer than that between new product categories. Remember, it was six years between the iPod and iPhone. We didn't all lose our minds then.
Give the guy some time. Three years is not that long. Even SJ took longer than that between new product categories. Remember, it was six years between the iPod and iPhone. We didn't all lose our minds then.
Oh, I never said his time is up. He's keeping the company very healthy. Healthy enough that he can make a couple of mistakes and not do too much damage. I'm hoping that he's around long enough for a new product category introduction. I really want to see how that goes.
Wrong! Apple had a very LOW short interest and typically has an extremely low short interest as a percentage of market cap.
AAPL is one of the least shorted stocks on Wall Street.
Sorry... I'm old... I get confused.
I'm not comparing Cook to Sculley per se.
Both Cook and Sculley were/have been increasingly very profitable. Both men followed on the heels of successful product introductions by Steve Jobs. Both men did not/have not introduced any new product categories (actually, Sculley introduced the first laptop).
I've seen one of Tim Cook's forays into developing a new product, the 5c, and I'm hoping that isn't any indication of the success of any new product categories.
As far as Apple's financial success under Cook... I'm betting there are at least a couple of other guys on the planet that could have done that much. The real test will be Cook's ability to grow the company beyond its current boundaries... in the same manner as Jobs.
So, yes... I need more evidence of Cook's ability to grow the company. I already know that he can keep the products alive that were developed under Jobs.
haha! oh great. two old guys, both easily confused.... this explains a lot!
Well, aren't we going to have some fun then ... 
))
As to your last bit there, I'm not sure it will ever be TC's role to be "the next Steve Jobs"... I think it's going to be a lot more of a team effort from here on out, with TC managing the ship and keeping it running smoothly while the creators go nuts and cook it down to the essentials... then *pop* we'll get a new product, and/or more incremental (but significant) advances in familiar things, or new connectivity where there wasn't any before. And every now and then, they'll surprise and amaze us (like the Mac Pro, which I believe is actually an interesting harbinger of things to come).
I don't think they're bluffing about pulling out the stops this year on new product categories, etc... something very interesting is afoot.... I'm sure of it.
The way my computers and devices play together now, it really is easy to take for granted. It's amazing. Transparent. So intuitive it's easy to overlook just how natural they make it all seem.
This is the stuff that's also easily overlooked when handing out credit for guiding the company. iCloud is turning into something extraordinary, one baby step at a time. One minute you're not looking and the next, there it is... totally functional, fully integrated across all your devices and invaluable to your daily life.....
Apple at its best in my view.
Very, very hard to do with saturated markets, without some amazing new phone, or a new line of revenue. They need to invest heavily in ipayments and iTV, and offer 3 different size iPhones. That's where their growth will be found.
Wrong: smart phone market is not saturated. Please share your source.
Right: Apple will monetize from their customer base...but only if it brings/returns some value to customers.
Right: 3 different size phones. We'll see that in 2014. I'll bet anyone $100 in monopoly money that we'll see a larger (like 4.8" iPhone) in 2014. Any takers? :-)
Well Gill Amelio did. Or so thought Jobs.
I think so too. Interesting the difference here between the defence of a new CEO (/manager) and a soccer site I post on where the last charismatic leader took the team to untold heights and the new guy has destroyed that legacy in 6 months. There there is nothing but criticism of the new guy - here Jobs is clearly replaceable by an accountant type.
51M.
We all know that Samsung doesn't sell a single unit. They just ship them to be stockpiled in the shops.
It's funny though that the shops aren't returning any though.
It's funny though that the shops aren't returning any though.
oh but they are. Samsung just doesn't report it. They don't subtract "returns" from "the number shipped".
Apple sold 51 MILLION phones, with roughly 40 million of those estimated to be the flagship 5s model. Samsung sold 9 million of their S4.
40 sold, vs 9 shipped.
If Samsung only shipped 9 million to their warehouses, there aren't many returning yet. Wait until next quarter!
I would have thought by now that people would understand that Apple also reports shipment to channel ( "sell in" in their reports and QA). As for Samsung if there are returns you have to take a charge or draw down channel inventory.
I would have thought by now that people would understand that Apple also reports shipment to channel ( "sell in" in their reports and QA). As for Samsung if there are returns you have to take a charge or draw down channel inventory.
I was being mildly facetious about the warehouse thing....
As for the rest...
Apple's "shipments to channel" aren't what we're referring to exclusively when we talk about Apple sales. They differentiate between sales and shipped to channel (channel being 'third party retailers' like Best Buy and Target?). They are very different than their competition in this regard, in part because of how they manage inventory. Do any of these analyses quoted around here take into account draw downs in channel inventory vs revenue? That kind of reportage is too granular for the average reader I think.
When talking about "sales", Apple sells through pretty much everything they make and ship, and within a couple of weeks of shipping it. We know this because they only keep a couple of weeks of 'inventory' on hand. They don't end up stacked up with a backlog.
Do we get a breakdown of "returns" that Apple receives (assuming either defective units or an unsatisfied customer)? I don't remember seeing it in the line items... but we do get the bottom line. That says that Apple is selling a HUGE number of "premium" phones (it's all they sell) compared to any other single competitor.
And profitably too.
By a factor of roughly 4 to 1 "shipped" (and no doubt even higher "sold", since there was NO standing 5s inventory available for a couple of months) vs the Galaxy S4, if what I've seen is correct...
I would have thought by now that people would understand that Apple also reports shipment to channel ( "sell in" in their reports and QA). As for Samsung if there are returns you have to take a charge or draw down channel inventory.
By South Korean rules?
I somehow have always assumed Samsung stays off the NYSE to avoid the awkwardness of the United States' reporting requirements.
Apple reports shipment to channel. Let's be clear about that. Yes they have just a few weeks inventory, I don't doubt that Samsung do as well. If either Apple's or Samsung's sell through were lower than expected then inventory builds up and sales to channel suffer in the next quarter. In fact Apple often have that problem. If there are massive amount of returns either the retailer handles it ( adding to channel inventory) if the return can be sold again, or if it is faulty or the retailer can never sell its a cost, a charge to the manufacturer. Which appears in the books as a write down. Don't see that for either company.
All this means that Samsung's 9 million sales to channel are just a few weeks from being sales to customers. Like Apple.
Yet it's the second best selling phone at about every carrier.
Big IF since Apple has a 90% satisfaction rate.
As for Sammy, they don't report numbers.
Yes, I noted that huge cash flow also. And, unless I've misread the figures, Google's cash flow in its recently released earnings was just under $3 billion. This strikes me as a telling disparity that would benefit from Mr. Dilger's sterling analysis.
In summary, Apple's free cash flow was $23 billion, Google's $3 billion.
You just lost $40+ plus fees
Two weeks later it's at $543. He has earned $37 a share so far. Who's feeling foolish now?
OK, so my prediction was a little off. I said it would be recovering within days... it took a couple of weeks instead.
Still it's recovering quickly, as I expected. At $543 today, after a week of steady increases.
I expect that trend will continue. To those who ranted on about what a failure the reporting/guidance picture was, how the stock is "dead money" for the next three months, how there is nothing in the underpinnings to justify any gains (and others who declared $450 as the likely bottom), I say....
Nah. The numbers said the drop was very very temporary. The coming annual report on the 28th should solidify the picture. Great things yet to come, and don't be surprised if the stock hits $570 or higher.....