On a conference call, it is imperative to proudly exclaim your accomplishments. 700m+ c.c.'s on file is something no other company can come close to. What other company even has 100m? Who cares if it grows even 1% yoy? That's 8 million additional users. You have take consider that 800m relative to every other # in the history of the world. It's staggering, not fluff.
Ios in the car will be huge. You could write a book about why it's imperative for their business model to succeed. There is a reason why 100% of car mfgrs will offer it within 3 years. If they don't, their sales will be had by a competitor. Granted, they won't make huge numbers off iOS in the car, but they will make huge profits selling iPhones and iPads and Iwatches.
Apple's ecosystem exists to sell hardware, not to generate insane profits. The lion's share of profits come from hardware sales. I think payments will eventually account for 15% of Apple's profits...down the road.
I agree with your thoughts about the subscription service. But ultimately, I could care less. I go to my Netflix and Prime app if I want to stream old movies. I don't like spending the 20% Apple premium, compared to Amazon, on rentals and purchases of digital content, but I overcome that by buying $100 iTunes cards on sale for $75 on ebay once a year. Although, I've noticed recently their prices are more in line with Amazon's.
I didn't say iOS for the car isn't needed, but I would like to know if they are able to communicate some minimization from that area. If so, how much do they make per car or at least as a whole.
If you look at Apple's business from a business segment, they have different slices of the pie, and if they are making revenues from the iOS auto efforts, then I think it would be nice to have the numbers associated with it, so we can see what amount of their revenues/profits come from iOS for the car market segment.
Yeah, I know it helps sell more iPhones, iPads, etc. etc. but I was just asking if they can monetize it and show the numbers so we can track and better predict the growth rate from that segment of the business.
Quarter ending Dec 2013 14.50 eps vs 13.81. Eps grow of 5%
Quarter ending Sept 2013. 8.26 eps vs 8.67. Negative eps growth
Quarter ending Jun 2013. 7.47 eps vs 9.32. Negative eps
Quarter ending Apr 2013. 10.09 eps vs 12.30. Negative eps growth.
Apple was NOT growing earnings 15% the last 4 quarters until this quarter.
They usually look at year to year growth rate, not just by quarter. Just to let you know.
When they look at P/E, that's based on yearly earnings, not quarterly.
If you look at Apple, they have a weird yearly cycle, their biggest quarter is their Q1, which is the December quarter and then it subsequently goes down and then jumps back up again. Other companies don't have that type of cycle, other companies might have a more consistent quarter to quarter cycle because their business model was just different.
For instance, Samsung, because they are actually a different business model, they are more consistent from quarter to quarter and not as cyclical. But overall, these analysts are looking at what's their YEARLY growth rates.
What happens is because of Apple's declining sales trends, people think they are doing worse business because they see this HUGE spike in December and then it gradually goes down, but that's how Apple's been for as long as I can remember. But what I think would be BETTER for Apple, is they need to not wait until the last quarter to make a TON of product announcements. It just screws up production and what has happened in the last two years alone is they can't meet demand for their hot products and they have to make customers wait longer to get product.
For the iPhones, I think if they are moving towards two, or even three screen sizes, they should release every so many months apart to always create a demand and sales that's more consistent throughout the year. If you look at Samsung, they release 3 different screens sizes of their flagship model throughout the year. They release a 4, 5, and 5.5 inch but they don't release them all at once, they usually have at least a few months between release dates and I think that's what Apple should do. I think because of the delay in getting a larger screen iPhone out to market, they should release that as quickly as possible to prevent any additional Android sales because I feel they could attract a LOT of Android users the sooner they release it. That's my own personal opinion.
I'm right, you're wrong. Please, go take some courses in Investments and Finance and then we'll talk. You guys seem to conjure up useless crap that Wall Street doesn't really look at to make a determination of the health of a company and predicting the stock valuation.
EARNINGS ARE RELEASED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BUT THEY LOOK AT YEAR TO YEAR GROWTH OF 12 MONTHS WORTH OF EARNINGS TO DETERMINE GROWTH RATE.
I should send you a bill for my training services. STOP acting like you know what you are talking about Spam, this is an area you obviously are NOT well versed in.
Are you telling me that based on what they will do in the next 12 months?
I'm not saying the PE is not calculated using 12 month earnings and Price. I'm saying the actual stock price (a component of the PE ratio) is based on 2 or 3 years or even more of growth.
Amazon's PE ratio of 570 is not justified with what they will do in the next 12 months but rather the next 5 - 10 years.
So if you look at Apple growing at 8% for the next 3 years that would justify a stock price going up by 30%
The P in P/E is the current stock price. The E in P/E ratio is the combination of the last 4 quarters earnings and they update this P/E ratio every quarter as they release earnings. Now, the P will change minute by minute, but that E only gets updated each quarter.
Now, when someone decides to invest, they usually want to invest when the P/E ratio is low because it means that it's undervalued and it should have a better chance of going up. Each stock has it's own historical range for P/E and when a company is in their growth stage, the P/E's are generally higher than when they change from a "growth" company to a "Mature" company. One aspect of maturity is that they'll start paying dividends and their yearly growth rates are lower and more REALISTIC for the long term.
Example, when Apple was seeing 40%, 50%, 60% growth rates, those are usually sustainable. At some point in time, they'll reach saturation.
Now, some think they still have a lot more growth left over the long term in certain areas IF they can attract the business, grow into different markets and keep up with production.
!. Based on some surveys a year ago, there was a lot of Windows users that plan on switching to OS X. If 10% of the Windows users left and went to OS X, Apple would have a HUGE increase in sales because 10% of Windows is a LOT of people. I think Apple should do more Mac-based advertising because they do very little. Most of Apple's advertising is more iPhone and iPad related, which is nice, but people need to still be reminded that Apple sells computers. Apple has doubled their marketshare in terms of products shipped in the last 6 years and that is a linear trend line and I think they have a LOT more potential growth not only in the Enterprise market, but also in China, and then in India. Apple if they played their cards right could double their shipments in the next 6 years again, until they reached about 30% total install base. If you look at companies that have given their employees the option of choosing a Mac or PC, they have pretty good success rates that actually reach about 30% adoption in the workplace, their biggest hurdle is getting more large corporations to give their employees the option. GE has a pilot that's allowing employees to choose a Mac vs a PC, but for that company, it takes a long time for them to shift. I read an article a couple of years ago that at Jet Propulsion Labs and NASA that MacBookPros and iPads are actually standard issue now, which means Apple's doing well in certain places. They just need MORE of these Enterprise opportunities to get more products sold. I wish Apple had their products tested and met more Military requirements so they could get chosen for military purposes. They sell some, but not as many as they could. Apple could step it up a LOT more in the Enterprise and they would have a HUGE amount of increased sales, and Apple makes more revenue per Mac than they do per iPhone/iPad since the average selling price for a Mac is around $1500 vs $600 for iPhones and $500 for iPads. I think Apple really could do better in Mac sales if they put their minds to it. But they don't have the focus on that market like they should.
2. Based on Apple's market penetration of iPads, each market they go after (whether it's education, enterprise, or consumer) or whether it's by country, Apple has varying market penetration. For the educational market, they have a lot of penetration, so sales growth is based on how often the schools/colleges are repurchasing new replacement models, for the Enterprise, Apple has decent penetration, but they still have a ways to go before that reaches saturation. In different countries as they ramp up, Apple still has a LOT of potential growth, China is one of them, India is the next large growth opportunity.
What Apple isn't doing to go after the Enterprise market. They USED to have a decent sized sales force going after the Enterprise market where they worked with resellers that had contracts and account penetration with the Enterprise market. They got rid of most of those people several years ago. I think they did it when they realized the Xserves weren't getting as much traction as they hoped.
So instead of at least TRYING to go after that market, they got out and they focused more on consumer products and retail which is why they opted for the Apple Store, iPhones, and IPads. which proved to be a great success.
What's happening is that they are getting a certain degree of traction in iPhone and iPad sales into the Entprise, but they still need to start going after Mac OS X sales when they can. Once they can get an Enterprise customer to "buy into' OS X as an option for their employees, they do quite well, but they aren't focusing as much on it as they are the iPhone/iPad. It's a different sales approach. It's the "oh, by the way, we have Macs", which to these Enterprise customers is being kind of wimpy.
Now, there is a debate by these IT departments on management tools for desktops, phones, tablets, etc. Most of these Enterprise companies usually use Microsoft administration tools, or Altris which their IT management people use to manage their computers, but they pretty much don't support Macs, but there is a company called JAMF which does manage Macs, iPhones, and iPads and does work in conjunction with Microsoft and Altris management software.
The challenge is getting these Enterprise customers to adopt the management software and allow Macs, iPhones, and iPads into the door. For the companies that do adopt, Apple can get pretty damn good traction with Mac laptop/desktop sales.
Obviously, due to Apple's lack of Enterprise experience, they are taking the soft sales approach and going more after iPhones and iPads because let's face it, it's a LOT easier and they have done a pretty effective job in this area, with still room for growth.
I think Apple has a tremendous amount of future opportunity with Macs despite what anyone says. Apple seems to think it's more iPads, but that's because they can't seem to crack that door open for Macs as easily. yeah, tablets is a growing market and PCs isn't as much, but there is STILL a lot of disgruntled PC users that STILL want to use a Desktop or Laptop that don't want to switch to Windows 8 that are ripe for Apple to sell to, it's just a matter of making the products those people want to buy.
So while the growth is in iPads, they can still see growth in Macs and they have to sell 3 iPads to get the same revenue (on average) as one Mac.
They usually look at year to year growth rate, not just by quarter. Just to let you know.
When they look at P/E, that's based on yearly earnings, not quarterly.
If you look at Apple, they have a weird yearly cycle, their biggest quarter is their Q1, which is the December quarter and then it subsequently goes down and then jumps back up again. Other companies don't have that type of cycle, other companies might have a more consistent quarter to quarter cycle because their business model was just different.
For instance, Samsung, because they are actually a different business model, they are more consistent from quarter to quarter and not as cyclical. But overall, these analysts are looking at what's their YEARLY growth rates.
What happens is because of Apple's declining sales trends, people think they are doing worse business because they see this HUGE spike in December and then it gradually goes down, but that's how Apple's been for as long as I can remember. But what I think would be BETTER for Apple, is they need to not wait until the last quarter to make a TON of product announcements. It just screws up production and what has happened in the last two years alone is they can't meet demand for their hot products and they have to make customers wait longer to get product.
For the iPhones, I think if they are moving towards two, or even three screen sizes, they should release every so many months apart to always create a demand and sales that's more consistent throughout the year. If you look at Samsung, they release 3 different screens sizes of their flagship model throughout the year. They release a 4, 5, and 5.5 inch but they don't release them all at once, they usually have at least a few months between release dates and I think that's what Apple should do. I think because of the delay in getting a larger screen iPhone out to market, they should release that as quickly as possible to prevent any additional Android sales because I feel they could attract a LOT of Android users the sooner they release it. That's my own personal opinion.
I'm right, you're wrong. Please, go take some courses in Investments and Finance and then we'll talk. You guys seem to conjure up useless crap that Wall Street doesn't really look at to make a determination of the health of a company and predicting the stock valuation.
EARNINGS ARE RELEASED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BUT THEY LOOK AT YEAR TO YEAR GROWTH OF 12 MONTHS WORTH OF EARNINGS TO DETERMINE GROWTH RATE.
I should send you a bill for my training services. STOP acting like you know what you are talking about Spam, this is an area you obviously are NOT well versed in.
Apple's biggest quarter coincides with iPhone launches.
APPLE DOES NOT NEED WALL STREET AT ALL.
They do not need to raise money to run their business by selling shares.
This more than anything drives analysts and financial "experts" crazy which has led to Apple having one of the most undervalued stocks in history.
I wonder how much stock was "retired" by Apple when idiots dumped their stock after taking advice from the likes of you.
What Apple isn't doing to go after the Enterprise market. They USED to have a decent sized sales force going after the Enterprise market where they worked with resellers that had contracts and account penetration with the Enterprise market. They got rid of most of those people several years ago. I think they did it when they realized the Xserves weren't getting as much traction as they hoped.
So instead of at least TRYING to go after that market, they got out and they focused more on consumer products and retail which is why they opted for the Apple Store, iPhones, and IPads. which proved to be a great success.
What's happening is that they are getting a certain degree of traction in iPhone and iPad sales into the Entprise, but they still need to start going after Mac OS X sales when they can. Once they can get an Enterprise customer to "buy into' OS X as an option for their employees, they do quite well, but they aren't focusing as much on it as they are the iPhone/iPad. It's a different sales approach. It's the "oh, by the way, we have Macs", which to these Enterprise customers is being kind of wimpy.
Now, there is a debate by these IT departments on management tools for desktops, phones, tablets, etc. Most of these Enterprise companies usually use Microsoft administration tools, or Altris which their IT management people use to manage their computers, but they pretty much don't support Macs, but there is a company called JAMF which does manage Macs, iPhones, and iPads and does work in conjunction with Microsoft and Altris management software.
The challenge is getting these Enterprise customers to adopt the management software and allow Macs, iPhones, and iPads into the door. For the companies that do adopt, Apple can get pretty damn good traction with Mac laptop/desktop sales.
Obviously, due to Apple's lack of Enterprise experience, they are taking the soft sales approach and going more after iPhones and iPads because let's face it, it's a LOT easier and they have done a pretty effective job in this area, with still room for growth.
I think Apple has a tremendous amount of future opportunity with Macs despite what anyone says. Apple seems to think it's more iPads, but that's because they can't seem to crack that door open for Macs as easily. yeah, tablets is a growing market and PCs isn't as much, but there is STILL a lot of disgruntled PC users that STILL want to use a Desktop or Laptop that don't want to switch to Windows 8 that are ripe for Apple to sell to, it's just a matter of making the products those people want to buy.
So while the growth is in iPads, they can still see growth in Macs and they have to sell 3 iPads to get the same revenue (on average) as one Mac.
Yes they are, Cook said as much when referring to Microsoft's late launch of Office for iPads.
Apple's biggest quarter coincides with iPhone launches.
APPLE DOES NOT NEED WALL STREET AT ALL.
They do not need to raise money to run their business by selling shares.
This more than anything drives analysts and financial "experts" crazy which has led to Apple having one of the most undervalued stocks in history.
I wonder how much stock was "retired" by Apple when idiots dumped their stock after taking advice from the likes of you.
Most of Apple's employees make money because of their stock options and shares that they own, so YES, Apple does NEED Wall Street. Most of the members of upper management make most of their money from options and stock issued, not their normal pay check.
Apple's biggest quarter is the Christmas quarter because they are more of a consumer based company. They didn't start releasing iPhones at the end of the year until many years AFTER it was introduced. Same with iPads. They just have gotten into this forcing as much of their sales to the Dec quarter which is their Q1. They used to use the iPods as their big Christmas seller, but now it's iPhones and iPads. I think they'll announce new iPods this year as they didn't announce anything last year. At least that's my observation. It may be just storage upgrades, but I think they are getting ready for 24 Bit upgrades, Storage upgrade and maybe getting the iPod Touch to 64 Bit for more enhanced game playing. I think maybe a iPod Touch 5 inch might be interesting for the game players out there.
I think Apple needs to go back to product releases each quarter and spread out the sales to kick the other months up a notch. But that's just what i think. I think Tim THINKS that they need to do hardware and OS updates at the same time and doing both OS X and iOS and that's a LOT of work to coincide all of this at the same time and keep production in line to meet the spike in demand. It's just a very dangerous position to be in.
Yes they are, Cook said as much when referring to Microsoft's late launch of Office for iPads.
POST
PC
WORLD
Well, there is STILL a lot more traction they could get with desktops and laptops since they only have about 7% worldwide market share and NOT everyone ONLY uses a tablet. I use my desktop far more than my iPad, even though I use my iPad. Reason? When I'm doing spreadsheets, I get a LOT more real estate on the screen as my spreadsheets are quite large and on an iPad it's just painfully impossible to view everything. Screen size is just too small for large spreadsheet usage. A 12 inch would be better, but I'm using a 27inch screen and I STILL have to scroll around. I have one spreadsheet that I work on a lot and it's 24 columns and 108 rows. Try that size on a 9.7 inch screen. Yeah, right.
Don't get me wrong, Office for a tablet is great, but for people that use large spreadsheets, we still need the real estate and power of a desktop or at least a laptop with a large monitor attached.
Well, there is STILL a lot more traction they could get with desktops and laptops since they only have about 7% worldwide market share and NOT everyone ONLY uses a tablet. I use my desktop far more than my iPad, even though I use my iPad. Reason? When I'm doing spreadsheets, I get a LOT more real estate on the screen as my spreadsheets are quite large and on an iPad it's just painfully impossible to view everything. Screen size is just too small for large spreadsheet usage. A 12 inch would be better, but I'm using a 27inch screen and I STILL have to scroll around. I have one spreadsheet that I work on a lot and it's 24 columns and 108 rows. Try that size on a 9.7 inch screen. Yeah, right.
Don't get me wrong, Office for a tablet is great, but for people that use large spreadsheets, we still need the real estate and power of a desktop or at least a laptop with a large monitor attached.
desktops and laptops? Remember, XP is dead and now unsupported yet there are about 35% of Windows install base. Many of these people DON'T like Windows 8. That's HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of potential MacOS X users. Maybe Apple needs to update their PC vs Mac ads again. They WERE successful back when they were running. They just need to update them to make them more relevant.
If there was 100 Million Windows users that switched to Mac, that's 100,000,000 x $1,500 (average Mac price sold) = $150 BILLION in Gross Sales, which equals about $55 Billion in Gross Profits. 100 Million Windows users only represents about 5% to 10% of the Windows install base, but that would effectively DOUBLE the amount of Mac users.
Kind of staggering if you think about it. Not everyone only wants to have JUST an iPad.
If I had enough money and room to spare on my computing, I'd have a MacMini as a dedicated music server, a moderately powered desktop, iPad, iPhone, and maybe even a laptop. and that's just for me. so that's 3 Macs, 1 iPad, and 1 iPhone for one user. :-) I would upgrade each about every 2 to 3 years.
desktops and laptops? Remember, XP is dead and now unsupported yet there are about 35% of Windows install base. Many of these people DON'T like Windows 8. That's HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of potential MacOS X users. Maybe Apple needs to update their PC vs Mac ads again. They WERE successful back when they were running. They just need to update them to make them more relevant.
If there was 100 Million Windows users that switched to Mac, that's 100,000,000 x $1,500 (average Mac price sold) = $150 BILLION in Gross Sales, which equals about $55 Billion in Gross Profits. 100 Million Windows users only represents about 5% to 10% of the Windows install base, but that would effectively DOUBLE the amount of Mac users.
Kind of staggering if you think about it. Not everyone only wants to have JUST an iPad.
If I had enough money and room to spare on my computing, I'd have a MacMini as a dedicated music server, a moderately powered desktop, iPad, iPhone, and maybe even a laptop. and that's just for me. so that's 3 Macs, 1 iPad, and 1 iPhone for one user. :-) I would upgrade each about every 2 to 3 years.
Maybe, the business I work for needs to update thousands of PC's, running XP in order to support legacy software that needs ActiveX running in IE6.
The replacement software they are working on will probably involve iPads.
The savings in space, security solutions and energy required will more than cover the cost.
Maybe, the business I work for needs to update thousands of PC's, running XP in order to support legacy software that needs ActiveX running in IE6.
The replacement software they are working on will probably involve iPads.
The savings in space, security solutions and energy required will more than cover the cost.
What legacy s/w do you have to use ActiveX running on IE6?
You didn't know XP is officially dead? NO security updates anymore, so it's a target for TONS of malicious crap. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Yeah, I guess installs have dropped down to 27% of the PC run it. I don't know what the total count of PCs are out there, but it's probably at least a few hundred million people have to switch.
iPads run ActiveX running on IE6? I did not know that.
If you IT department still has thousands of PC running XP, I would highly question your employment decision. Maybe it's time to work for a little more progressive company.
You are wrong. You said Apple was growing earnings 15% the past year. Earnings have been shrinking. Just admit you are wrong. Thats why the stock went up this time because EPS was up 15%.
Here are the numbers for the last fiscal year vs previous year.
Year ending Sept 2013 - Net Income $37,037,000,000
Year ending Sept 2012 - Net Income $41,733,000,000
Thats a DECLINE in net income of 12.6%. Not an increase of 15%.
Now its your turn to show that Apple has been increasing earnings 15% the last year.
Yeah, that was LAST year. They took a dump. That's why the stock took a dump and it lost a lot of price in the stock since it hit the high of $700 and then went back down. I think it's comparing what Apple's predicted to do from 2013 to 2014. That's what they are looking at. is what they expect this next year which ends in Sept.
The EPS comparisons that I gave you ARE YEAR OVER YEAR comparisons. Not previous quarter. Thats the way Apple presents their financials every conference call. So here they are again:
Quarter ending Dec 2013 14.50 eps vs Dec 2012 - 13.81. Eps grow of 5%
Its incredible that the for the past year you had no idea Apple's earnings was actually shrinking.
You talk a big game with your Finance degree but at least I know how to read financial statements.
Yeah, what are they going to be at the end of Sept. 2014? That's why they got to kick out the freaking iPhone 6 in June and start to slam business. What I'm trying to explain is that Apple is NO longer a high growth stock and for it to REACH $700 a share, they would have to do 30% in earnings growth and be able to continue that similar growth rate, but they can't unless they do some major changes.
Now, if they are going to hit $600 a share, then they have to PROVE they can increase 15% to 20% growth in earnings. Obviously, spit adjust the numbers down accordingly.
The conversations was trying to figure out what Apple HAS to do in order for the stock to hit $700 and what is more likely.
The analysts are predicting about a 15% to 20% increase moving forward, but Apple has to kind of PROVE they can do that. if they screw up and can't then the stock price will reflect it.
I'm more talking about what they have to hit in order to get the stock up. They have a chance in hitting it, but that iPhone 6 has to hit the market soon, which I've been saying. The other person was asking about hitting $700 a share and I simply responded by saying that I didn't think they were going to hit it unless they start doing 30% a year growth. I think you are confusing my statements with another person, we were talking about the potential future and possibilities.
From what I know about what they are PLANNING on releasing, I think it's safe to predict that they can do 15 to 20% growth rate moving forward because of the iPhone 6 announcements, yearly refreshes, and things like that, but I don't think it's going to hit$700 as the new plateau unless they continually do 15% to 20% yearly for several years in a row. So, I was speaking about POTENTIAL and LIKELY future growth. But Cook & co. have to kind of not play this release everything at the end of the year because it screws up production.
Apple doesn't need to realign its product releases. As you said, Apple has a different business model than Sammy. You have to compare Apple to other consumer electronic companies. Only part of Sammy is consumer electronics.
It's always better to have more demand than supply. You're fooling yourself if you think production issues magically disappear if the release schedule was realigned.
Stop changing the story. You never said their earnings were shrinking 12%.
You said it was growing 15-20%.
Be a man and admit you were wrong.
So now you are mixing future predictions with the past. You asked about Apple hitting $700 a share, right? Well, I said they aren't going to hit it any time soon that I can tell because they aren't making 30% of profit anymore and that 15 to 20% is more realistic, and that's what I and others think is going to happen in the NEXT year. And now you are bringing history on a STALLED year, which I said they had. before they screwed up, they have been having huge growth years, but that party is OVER.
Now, moving forward i'm just making a prediction based on what I THINK they are going to do over the next 12 months based on what I know about what they are planning on releasing, but they have to increase production of the iPhone to meet the demand.
So, let's keep the discussion on one page and not start confusing things.
I'm talking about MOVING FORWARD, can they do 15 to 20%? Yes, it's VERY possible, that's why the 12 month target is $585 that was made back when the stock was trading at around $500.
Apple doesn't need to realign its product releases. As you said, Apple has a different business model than Sammy. You have to compare Apple to other consumer electronic companies. Only part of Sammy is consumer electronics.
It's always better to have more demand than supply. You're fooling yourself if you think production issues magically disappear if the release schedule was realigned.
yeah, they do. They have production issues since they started the slam everything at the end of the year approach. MacPro is STILL about a month backlog after about 5 months. The iPhone 5S took a while to catch up, some of the iPads took a few months to catch up. They can't continue to do that. If they are going to make 2 or 3 different sized phones, THEY WILL NOT be able to meet demand in a timely manner, which pisses people off.
Every time they release a new product, their biggest demand is the first 6 months and then it starts to trail off. RIGHT?
Why i THINK they haven't released the MacMini is because they are moving production to the US, just like they did with the MacPro, so that might be why they are delaying the product refresh. They also might be doing the same thing with the iMac as well.
Stop changing the story. You never said their earnings were shrinking 12%.
You said it was growing 15-20%.
Be a man and admit you were wrong.
I was talking about this upcoming year and the year after when you raised the question or statement about hitting $700 a share. At the rate they are going, they won't hit that UNLESS they have a 15 to 20% year to year growth over the next few years. Right now, if they DO hit 15% to 20% then they will hit and HOPEFULLY stay at around $600 and not go back down to $500. Pre stock split numbers.
You're problem is you keep changing things trying to make me look stupid when IN FACT you are such a coward you can't admit you were COMPLETELY WRONG in how the P/E is calculated as you brought up this 2 and 3 year BS. So, admit your misleading crap.
yeah, they do. They have production issues since they started the slam everything at the end of the year approach. MacPro is STILL about a month backlog after about 5 months. The iPhone 5S took a while to catch up, some of the iPads took a few months to catch up. They can't continue to do that. If they are going to make 2 or 3 different sized phones, THEY WILL NOT be able to meet demand in a timely manner, which pisses people off.
Every time they release a new product, their biggest demand is the first 6 months and then it starts to trail off. RIGHT?
Why i THINK they haven't released the MacMini is because they are moving production to the US, just like they did with the MacPro, so that might be why they are delaying the product refresh. They also might be doing the same thing with the iMac as well.
Demand will always be high at the time of product releases. Thats a fact. It doesn't matter if it's February, April, August, or October. Demand is high. Now they of course can start earlier but then it'll cause more issues for existing lines. I have confidence with Cook and his team.
Google grew earnings only 20% last year and their PE is 28.
I guarantee if Apple grows earnings 15% the next 2 quarters we will be over $700 split adjusted
Well, do you think they are going to hit $700 a share and STAY at $700 a share?
Here's what's been going on. Apple USED to trade at P/Es in the 20's and even 30's back when they were in HYPERGROWTH mode. But they AREN'T anymore. Now, their new range seems to be as low as 11 and as high as maybe 15, if they are lucky. That P/E ratio will dictate whether the stock is valued properly or if it's undervalued or overvalued.
Now, at 14, it's kind of pushing towards being OVERVALUED and when it's in OVERVALUED state, it doesn't last long. So, a lot of people are trying to figure out what they NEW range is for determining this state.
They took a jump for a day because of the hype around dividends and the 7 to 1 split. Right now, what's Apple trading at? 561 and a P/E of 14+. Now, will it stay there? who knows, we have to see how things get a little normal after the news once people get their head wrapped around yesterday's news. That's what typically happens after news like this.
What I am looking at is more of their new PLATEAU. Hitting a number is one thing, but STAYING at that price as a new plateau is another. I thought that after they do their stock split, it might hit $100, but I HIGHLY doubt it's going to stay long if it does. Time will tell on that one.
Now, if you want to talk about year to year growth rate, tell me over what time period. From today to a year from now? From the end of this fiscal year to the end of the year prior or the next year moving forward. BE VERY SPECIFIC on this, because you tend to confuse things and sometimes THINK I'm saying one thing when I'm not.
I am going to talk about over the next 12 months from TODAY. So, I think they have a likely chance of earnings growth of around 15% to 20% based on what i know, but a lot has to do with how they deal with iPhone production increases due to a spike in demand with them releasing a 5 inch model, refreshing 4 inch models, as well as refreshing other existing products. They CAN do it, it's just WILL they.
Comments
I didn't say iOS for the car isn't needed, but I would like to know if they are able to communicate some minimization from that area. If so, how much do they make per car or at least as a whole.
If you look at Apple's business from a business segment, they have different slices of the pie, and if they are making revenues from the iOS auto efforts, then I think it would be nice to have the numbers associated with it, so we can see what amount of their revenues/profits come from iOS for the car market segment.
Yeah, I know it helps sell more iPhones, iPads, etc. etc. but I was just asking if they can monetize it and show the numbers so we can track and better predict the growth rate from that segment of the business.
They usually look at year to year growth rate, not just by quarter. Just to let you know.
When they look at P/E, that's based on yearly earnings, not quarterly.
If you look at Apple, they have a weird yearly cycle, their biggest quarter is their Q1, which is the December quarter and then it subsequently goes down and then jumps back up again. Other companies don't have that type of cycle, other companies might have a more consistent quarter to quarter cycle because their business model was just different.
For instance, Samsung, because they are actually a different business model, they are more consistent from quarter to quarter and not as cyclical. But overall, these analysts are looking at what's their YEARLY growth rates.
What happens is because of Apple's declining sales trends, people think they are doing worse business because they see this HUGE spike in December and then it gradually goes down, but that's how Apple's been for as long as I can remember. But what I think would be BETTER for Apple, is they need to not wait until the last quarter to make a TON of product announcements. It just screws up production and what has happened in the last two years alone is they can't meet demand for their hot products and they have to make customers wait longer to get product.
For the iPhones, I think if they are moving towards two, or even three screen sizes, they should release every so many months apart to always create a demand and sales that's more consistent throughout the year. If you look at Samsung, they release 3 different screens sizes of their flagship model throughout the year. They release a 4, 5, and 5.5 inch but they don't release them all at once, they usually have at least a few months between release dates and I think that's what Apple should do. I think because of the delay in getting a larger screen iPhone out to market, they should release that as quickly as possible to prevent any additional Android sales because I feel they could attract a LOT of Android users the sooner they release it. That's my own personal opinion.
I'm right, you're wrong. Please, go take some courses in Investments and Finance and then we'll talk. You guys seem to conjure up useless crap that Wall Street doesn't really look at to make a determination of the health of a company and predicting the stock valuation.
EARNINGS ARE RELEASED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BUT THEY LOOK AT YEAR TO YEAR GROWTH OF 12 MONTHS WORTH OF EARNINGS TO DETERMINE GROWTH RATE.
I should send you a bill for my training services. STOP acting like you know what you are talking about Spam, this is an area you obviously are NOT well versed in.
Amazon has a PE of 570.
Are you telling me that based on what they will do in the next 12 months?
I'm not saying the PE is not calculated using 12 month earnings and Price. I'm saying the actual stock price (a component of the PE ratio) is based on 2 or 3 years or even more of growth.
Amazon's PE ratio of 570 is not justified with what they will do in the next 12 months but rather the next 5 - 10 years.
So if you look at Apple growing at 8% for the next 3 years that would justify a stock price going up by 30%
The P in P/E is the current stock price. The E in P/E ratio is the combination of the last 4 quarters earnings and they update this P/E ratio every quarter as they release earnings. Now, the P will change minute by minute, but that E only gets updated each quarter.
Now, when someone decides to invest, they usually want to invest when the P/E ratio is low because it means that it's undervalued and it should have a better chance of going up. Each stock has it's own historical range for P/E and when a company is in their growth stage, the P/E's are generally higher than when they change from a "growth" company to a "Mature" company. One aspect of maturity is that they'll start paying dividends and their yearly growth rates are lower and more REALISTIC for the long term.
Example, when Apple was seeing 40%, 50%, 60% growth rates, those are usually sustainable. At some point in time, they'll reach saturation.
Now, some think they still have a lot more growth left over the long term in certain areas IF they can attract the business, grow into different markets and keep up with production.
!. Based on some surveys a year ago, there was a lot of Windows users that plan on switching to OS X. If 10% of the Windows users left and went to OS X, Apple would have a HUGE increase in sales because 10% of Windows is a LOT of people. I think Apple should do more Mac-based advertising because they do very little. Most of Apple's advertising is more iPhone and iPad related, which is nice, but people need to still be reminded that Apple sells computers. Apple has doubled their marketshare in terms of products shipped in the last 6 years and that is a linear trend line and I think they have a LOT more potential growth not only in the Enterprise market, but also in China, and then in India. Apple if they played their cards right could double their shipments in the next 6 years again, until they reached about 30% total install base. If you look at companies that have given their employees the option of choosing a Mac or PC, they have pretty good success rates that actually reach about 30% adoption in the workplace, their biggest hurdle is getting more large corporations to give their employees the option. GE has a pilot that's allowing employees to choose a Mac vs a PC, but for that company, it takes a long time for them to shift. I read an article a couple of years ago that at Jet Propulsion Labs and NASA that MacBookPros and iPads are actually standard issue now, which means Apple's doing well in certain places. They just need MORE of these Enterprise opportunities to get more products sold. I wish Apple had their products tested and met more Military requirements so they could get chosen for military purposes. They sell some, but not as many as they could. Apple could step it up a LOT more in the Enterprise and they would have a HUGE amount of increased sales, and Apple makes more revenue per Mac than they do per iPhone/iPad since the average selling price for a Mac is around $1500 vs $600 for iPhones and $500 for iPads. I think Apple really could do better in Mac sales if they put their minds to it. But they don't have the focus on that market like they should.
2. Based on Apple's market penetration of iPads, each market they go after (whether it's education, enterprise, or consumer) or whether it's by country, Apple has varying market penetration. For the educational market, they have a lot of penetration, so sales growth is based on how often the schools/colleges are repurchasing new replacement models, for the Enterprise, Apple has decent penetration, but they still have a ways to go before that reaches saturation. In different countries as they ramp up, Apple still has a LOT of potential growth, China is one of them, India is the next large growth opportunity.
What Apple isn't doing to go after the Enterprise market. They USED to have a decent sized sales force going after the Enterprise market where they worked with resellers that had contracts and account penetration with the Enterprise market. They got rid of most of those people several years ago. I think they did it when they realized the Xserves weren't getting as much traction as they hoped.
So instead of at least TRYING to go after that market, they got out and they focused more on consumer products and retail which is why they opted for the Apple Store, iPhones, and IPads. which proved to be a great success.
What's happening is that they are getting a certain degree of traction in iPhone and iPad sales into the Entprise, but they still need to start going after Mac OS X sales when they can. Once they can get an Enterprise customer to "buy into' OS X as an option for their employees, they do quite well, but they aren't focusing as much on it as they are the iPhone/iPad. It's a different sales approach. It's the "oh, by the way, we have Macs", which to these Enterprise customers is being kind of wimpy.
Now, there is a debate by these IT departments on management tools for desktops, phones, tablets, etc. Most of these Enterprise companies usually use Microsoft administration tools, or Altris which their IT management people use to manage their computers, but they pretty much don't support Macs, but there is a company called JAMF which does manage Macs, iPhones, and iPads and does work in conjunction with Microsoft and Altris management software.
The challenge is getting these Enterprise customers to adopt the management software and allow Macs, iPhones, and iPads into the door. For the companies that do adopt, Apple can get pretty damn good traction with Mac laptop/desktop sales.
Obviously, due to Apple's lack of Enterprise experience, they are taking the soft sales approach and going more after iPhones and iPads because let's face it, it's a LOT easier and they have done a pretty effective job in this area, with still room for growth.
I think Apple has a tremendous amount of future opportunity with Macs despite what anyone says. Apple seems to think it's more iPads, but that's because they can't seem to crack that door open for Macs as easily. yeah, tablets is a growing market and PCs isn't as much, but there is STILL a lot of disgruntled PC users that STILL want to use a Desktop or Laptop that don't want to switch to Windows 8 that are ripe for Apple to sell to, it's just a matter of making the products those people want to buy.
So while the growth is in iPads, they can still see growth in Macs and they have to sell 3 iPads to get the same revenue (on average) as one Mac.
They usually look at year to year growth rate, not just by quarter. Just to let you know.
When they look at P/E, that's based on yearly earnings, not quarterly.
If you look at Apple, they have a weird yearly cycle, their biggest quarter is their Q1, which is the December quarter and then it subsequently goes down and then jumps back up again. Other companies don't have that type of cycle, other companies might have a more consistent quarter to quarter cycle because their business model was just different.
For instance, Samsung, because they are actually a different business model, they are more consistent from quarter to quarter and not as cyclical. But overall, these analysts are looking at what's their YEARLY growth rates.
What happens is because of Apple's declining sales trends, people think they are doing worse business because they see this HUGE spike in December and then it gradually goes down, but that's how Apple's been for as long as I can remember. But what I think would be BETTER for Apple, is they need to not wait until the last quarter to make a TON of product announcements. It just screws up production and what has happened in the last two years alone is they can't meet demand for their hot products and they have to make customers wait longer to get product.
For the iPhones, I think if they are moving towards two, or even three screen sizes, they should release every so many months apart to always create a demand and sales that's more consistent throughout the year. If you look at Samsung, they release 3 different screens sizes of their flagship model throughout the year. They release a 4, 5, and 5.5 inch but they don't release them all at once, they usually have at least a few months between release dates and I think that's what Apple should do. I think because of the delay in getting a larger screen iPhone out to market, they should release that as quickly as possible to prevent any additional Android sales because I feel they could attract a LOT of Android users the sooner they release it. That's my own personal opinion.
I'm right, you're wrong. Please, go take some courses in Investments and Finance and then we'll talk. You guys seem to conjure up useless crap that Wall Street doesn't really look at to make a determination of the health of a company and predicting the stock valuation.
EARNINGS ARE RELEASED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, BUT THEY LOOK AT YEAR TO YEAR GROWTH OF 12 MONTHS WORTH OF EARNINGS TO DETERMINE GROWTH RATE.
I should send you a bill for my training services. STOP acting like you know what you are talking about Spam, this is an area you obviously are NOT well versed in.
Apple's biggest quarter coincides with iPhone launches.
APPLE DOES NOT NEED WALL STREET AT ALL.
They do not need to raise money to run their business by selling shares.
This more than anything drives analysts and financial "experts" crazy which has led to Apple having one of the most undervalued stocks in history.
I wonder how much stock was "retired" by Apple when idiots dumped their stock after taking advice from the likes of you.
What Apple isn't doing to go after the Enterprise market. They USED to have a decent sized sales force going after the Enterprise market where they worked with resellers that had contracts and account penetration with the Enterprise market. They got rid of most of those people several years ago. I think they did it when they realized the Xserves weren't getting as much traction as they hoped.
So instead of at least TRYING to go after that market, they got out and they focused more on consumer products and retail which is why they opted for the Apple Store, iPhones, and IPads. which proved to be a great success.
What's happening is that they are getting a certain degree of traction in iPhone and iPad sales into the Entprise, but they still need to start going after Mac OS X sales when they can. Once they can get an Enterprise customer to "buy into' OS X as an option for their employees, they do quite well, but they aren't focusing as much on it as they are the iPhone/iPad. It's a different sales approach. It's the "oh, by the way, we have Macs", which to these Enterprise customers is being kind of wimpy.
Now, there is a debate by these IT departments on management tools for desktops, phones, tablets, etc. Most of these Enterprise companies usually use Microsoft administration tools, or Altris which their IT management people use to manage their computers, but they pretty much don't support Macs, but there is a company called JAMF which does manage Macs, iPhones, and iPads and does work in conjunction with Microsoft and Altris management software.
The challenge is getting these Enterprise customers to adopt the management software and allow Macs, iPhones, and iPads into the door. For the companies that do adopt, Apple can get pretty damn good traction with Mac laptop/desktop sales.
Obviously, due to Apple's lack of Enterprise experience, they are taking the soft sales approach and going more after iPhones and iPads because let's face it, it's a LOT easier and they have done a pretty effective job in this area, with still room for growth.
I think Apple has a tremendous amount of future opportunity with Macs despite what anyone says. Apple seems to think it's more iPads, but that's because they can't seem to crack that door open for Macs as easily. yeah, tablets is a growing market and PCs isn't as much, but there is STILL a lot of disgruntled PC users that STILL want to use a Desktop or Laptop that don't want to switch to Windows 8 that are ripe for Apple to sell to, it's just a matter of making the products those people want to buy.
So while the growth is in iPads, they can still see growth in Macs and they have to sell 3 iPads to get the same revenue (on average) as one Mac.
Yes they are, Cook said as much when referring to Microsoft's late launch of Office for iPads.
POST
PC
WORLD
Apple's biggest quarter coincides with iPhone launches.
APPLE DOES NOT NEED WALL STREET AT ALL.
They do not need to raise money to run their business by selling shares.
This more than anything drives analysts and financial "experts" crazy which has led to Apple having one of the most undervalued stocks in history.
I wonder how much stock was "retired" by Apple when idiots dumped their stock after taking advice from the likes of you.
Most of Apple's employees make money because of their stock options and shares that they own, so YES, Apple does NEED Wall Street. Most of the members of upper management make most of their money from options and stock issued, not their normal pay check.
Apple's biggest quarter is the Christmas quarter because they are more of a consumer based company. They didn't start releasing iPhones at the end of the year until many years AFTER it was introduced. Same with iPads. They just have gotten into this forcing as much of their sales to the Dec quarter which is their Q1. They used to use the iPods as their big Christmas seller, but now it's iPhones and iPads. I think they'll announce new iPods this year as they didn't announce anything last year. At least that's my observation. It may be just storage upgrades, but I think they are getting ready for 24 Bit upgrades, Storage upgrade and maybe getting the iPod Touch to 64 Bit for more enhanced game playing. I think maybe a iPod Touch 5 inch might be interesting for the game players out there.
I think Apple needs to go back to product releases each quarter and spread out the sales to kick the other months up a notch. But that's just what i think. I think Tim THINKS that they need to do hardware and OS updates at the same time and doing both OS X and iOS and that's a LOT of work to coincide all of this at the same time and keep production in line to meet the spike in demand. It's just a very dangerous position to be in.
Yes they are, Cook said as much when referring to Microsoft's late launch of Office for iPads.
POST
PC
WORLD
Well, there is STILL a lot more traction they could get with desktops and laptops since they only have about 7% worldwide market share and NOT everyone ONLY uses a tablet. I use my desktop far more than my iPad, even though I use my iPad. Reason? When I'm doing spreadsheets, I get a LOT more real estate on the screen as my spreadsheets are quite large and on an iPad it's just painfully impossible to view everything. Screen size is just too small for large spreadsheet usage. A 12 inch would be better, but I'm using a 27inch screen and I STILL have to scroll around. I have one spreadsheet that I work on a lot and it's 24 columns and 108 rows. Try that size on a 9.7 inch screen. Yeah, right.
Don't get me wrong, Office for a tablet is great, but for people that use large spreadsheets, we still need the real estate and power of a desktop or at least a laptop with a large monitor attached.
Well, there is STILL a lot more traction they could get with desktops and laptops since they only have about 7% worldwide market share and NOT everyone ONLY uses a tablet. I use my desktop far more than my iPad, even though I use my iPad. Reason? When I'm doing spreadsheets, I get a LOT more real estate on the screen as my spreadsheets are quite large and on an iPad it's just painfully impossible to view everything. Screen size is just too small for large spreadsheet usage. A 12 inch would be better, but I'm using a 27inch screen and I STILL have to scroll around. I have one spreadsheet that I work on a lot and it's 24 columns and 108 rows. Try that size on a 9.7 inch screen. Yeah, right.
Don't get me wrong, Office for a tablet is great, but for people that use large spreadsheets, we still need the real estate and power of a desktop or at least a laptop with a large monitor attached.
Not much marketshare but plenty of dollars.
Not much marketshare but plenty of dollars.
desktops and laptops? Remember, XP is dead and now unsupported yet there are about 35% of Windows install base. Many of these people DON'T like Windows 8. That's HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of potential MacOS X users. Maybe Apple needs to update their PC vs Mac ads again. They WERE successful back when they were running. They just need to update them to make them more relevant.
If there was 100 Million Windows users that switched to Mac, that's 100,000,000 x $1,500 (average Mac price sold) = $150 BILLION in Gross Sales, which equals about $55 Billion in Gross Profits. 100 Million Windows users only represents about 5% to 10% of the Windows install base, but that would effectively DOUBLE the amount of Mac users.
Kind of staggering if you think about it. Not everyone only wants to have JUST an iPad.
If I had enough money and room to spare on my computing, I'd have a MacMini as a dedicated music server, a moderately powered desktop, iPad, iPhone, and maybe even a laptop. and that's just for me. so that's 3 Macs, 1 iPad, and 1 iPhone for one user. :-) I would upgrade each about every 2 to 3 years.
desktops and laptops? Remember, XP is dead and now unsupported yet there are about 35% of Windows install base. Many of these people DON'T like Windows 8. That's HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of potential MacOS X users. Maybe Apple needs to update their PC vs Mac ads again. They WERE successful back when they were running. They just need to update them to make them more relevant.
If there was 100 Million Windows users that switched to Mac, that's 100,000,000 x $1,500 (average Mac price sold) = $150 BILLION in Gross Sales, which equals about $55 Billion in Gross Profits. 100 Million Windows users only represents about 5% to 10% of the Windows install base, but that would effectively DOUBLE the amount of Mac users.
Kind of staggering if you think about it. Not everyone only wants to have JUST an iPad.
If I had enough money and room to spare on my computing, I'd have a MacMini as a dedicated music server, a moderately powered desktop, iPad, iPhone, and maybe even a laptop. and that's just for me. so that's 3 Macs, 1 iPad, and 1 iPhone for one user. :-) I would upgrade each about every 2 to 3 years.
Maybe, the business I work for needs to update thousands of PC's, running XP in order to support legacy software that needs ActiveX running in IE6.
The replacement software they are working on will probably involve iPads.
The savings in space, security solutions and energy required will more than cover the cost.
Maybe, the business I work for needs to update thousands of PC's, running XP in order to support legacy software that needs ActiveX running in IE6.
The replacement software they are working on will probably involve iPads.
The savings in space, security solutions and energy required will more than cover the cost.
What legacy s/w do you have to use ActiveX running on IE6?
You didn't know XP is officially dead? NO security updates anymore, so it's a target for TONS of malicious crap. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Yeah, I guess installs have dropped down to 27% of the PC run it. I don't know what the total count of PCs are out there, but it's probably at least a few hundred million people have to switch.
iPads run ActiveX running on IE6? I did not know that.
If you IT department still has thousands of PC running XP, I would highly question your employment decision. Maybe it's time to work for a little more progressive company.
You are wrong. You said Apple was growing earnings 15% the past year. Earnings have been shrinking. Just admit you are wrong. Thats why the stock went up this time because EPS was up 15%.
Here are the numbers for the last fiscal year vs previous year.
Year ending Sept 2013 - Net Income $37,037,000,000
Year ending Sept 2012 - Net Income $41,733,000,000
Thats a DECLINE in net income of 12.6%. Not an increase of 15%.
Unlike you I will provide a link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL+Income+Statement&annual
Now its your turn to show that Apple has been increasing earnings 15% the last year.
Yeah, that was LAST year. They took a dump. That's why the stock took a dump and it lost a lot of price in the stock since it hit the high of $700 and then went back down. I think it's comparing what Apple's predicted to do from 2013 to 2014. That's what they are looking at. is what they expect this next year which ends in Sept.
The EPS comparisons that I gave you ARE YEAR OVER YEAR comparisons. Not previous quarter. Thats the way Apple presents their financials every conference call. So here they are again:
Quarter ending Dec 2013 14.50 eps vs Dec 2012 - 13.81. Eps grow of 5%
Quarter ending Sept 2013. 8.26 eps vs Sept 2012 - 8.67. Negative eps growth
Quarter ending Jun 2013. 7.47 eps vs Jun 2013 - 9.32. Negative eps
Quarter ending Apr 2013. 10.09 eps vs Apr 2013 - 12.30. Negative eps growth.
And here is the link, I provide proof unlike you:
http://investor.apple.com/results.cfm
Its incredible that the for the past year you had no idea Apple's earnings was actually shrinking.
You talk a big game with your Finance degree but at least I know how to read financial statements.
Yeah, what are they going to be at the end of Sept. 2014? That's why they got to kick out the freaking iPhone 6 in June and start to slam business. What I'm trying to explain is that Apple is NO longer a high growth stock and for it to REACH $700 a share, they would have to do 30% in earnings growth and be able to continue that similar growth rate, but they can't unless they do some major changes.
Now, if they are going to hit $600 a share, then they have to PROVE they can increase 15% to 20% growth in earnings. Obviously, spit adjust the numbers down accordingly.
The conversations was trying to figure out what Apple HAS to do in order for the stock to hit $700 and what is more likely.
The analysts are predicting about a 15% to 20% increase moving forward, but Apple has to kind of PROVE they can do that. if they screw up and can't then the stock price will reflect it.
I'm more talking about what they have to hit in order to get the stock up. They have a chance in hitting it, but that iPhone 6 has to hit the market soon, which I've been saying. The other person was asking about hitting $700 a share and I simply responded by saying that I didn't think they were going to hit it unless they start doing 30% a year growth. I think you are confusing my statements with another person, we were talking about the potential future and possibilities.
From what I know about what they are PLANNING on releasing, I think it's safe to predict that they can do 15 to 20% growth rate moving forward because of the iPhone 6 announcements, yearly refreshes, and things like that, but I don't think it's going to hit$700 as the new plateau unless they continually do 15% to 20% yearly for several years in a row. So, I was speaking about POTENTIAL and LIKELY future growth. But Cook & co. have to kind of not play this release everything at the end of the year because it screws up production.
It's always better to have more demand than supply. You're fooling yourself if you think production issues magically disappear if the release schedule was realigned.
Stop changing the story. You never said their earnings were shrinking 12%.
You said it was growing 15-20%.
Be a man and admit you were wrong.
So now you are mixing future predictions with the past. You asked about Apple hitting $700 a share, right? Well, I said they aren't going to hit it any time soon that I can tell because they aren't making 30% of profit anymore and that 15 to 20% is more realistic, and that's what I and others think is going to happen in the NEXT year. And now you are bringing history on a STALLED year, which I said they had. before they screwed up, they have been having huge growth years, but that party is OVER.
Now, moving forward i'm just making a prediction based on what I THINK they are going to do over the next 12 months based on what I know about what they are planning on releasing, but they have to increase production of the iPhone to meet the demand.
So, let's keep the discussion on one page and not start confusing things.
I'm talking about MOVING FORWARD, can they do 15 to 20%? Yes, it's VERY possible, that's why the 12 month target is $585 that was made back when the stock was trading at around $500.
Apple doesn't need to realign its product releases. As you said, Apple has a different business model than Sammy. You have to compare Apple to other consumer electronic companies. Only part of Sammy is consumer electronics.
It's always better to have more demand than supply. You're fooling yourself if you think production issues magically disappear if the release schedule was realigned.
yeah, they do. They have production issues since they started the slam everything at the end of the year approach. MacPro is STILL about a month backlog after about 5 months. The iPhone 5S took a while to catch up, some of the iPads took a few months to catch up. They can't continue to do that. If they are going to make 2 or 3 different sized phones, THEY WILL NOT be able to meet demand in a timely manner, which pisses people off.
Every time they release a new product, their biggest demand is the first 6 months and then it starts to trail off. RIGHT?
Why i THINK they haven't released the MacMini is because they are moving production to the US, just like they did with the MacPro, so that might be why they are delaying the product refresh. They also might be doing the same thing with the iMac as well.
Stop changing the story. You never said their earnings were shrinking 12%.
You said it was growing 15-20%.
Be a man and admit you were wrong.
I was talking about this upcoming year and the year after when you raised the question or statement about hitting $700 a share. At the rate they are going, they won't hit that UNLESS they have a 15 to 20% year to year growth over the next few years. Right now, if they DO hit 15% to 20% then they will hit and HOPEFULLY stay at around $600 and not go back down to $500. Pre stock split numbers.
You're problem is you keep changing things trying to make me look stupid when IN FACT you are such a coward you can't admit you were COMPLETELY WRONG in how the P/E is calculated as you brought up this 2 and 3 year BS. So, admit your misleading crap.
Demand will always be high at the time of product releases. Thats a fact. It doesn't matter if it's February, April, August, or October. Demand is high. Now they of course can start earlier but then it'll cause more issues for existing lines. I have confidence with Cook and his team.
With 20% growth that would be about $45 EPS.
To reach $700 that would only be a PE of 15.5
Google grew earnings only 20% last year and their PE is 28.
I guarantee if Apple grows earnings 15% the next 2 quarters we will be over $700 split adjusted
Well, do you think they are going to hit $700 a share and STAY at $700 a share?
Here's what's been going on. Apple USED to trade at P/Es in the 20's and even 30's back when they were in HYPERGROWTH mode. But they AREN'T anymore. Now, their new range seems to be as low as 11 and as high as maybe 15, if they are lucky. That P/E ratio will dictate whether the stock is valued properly or if it's undervalued or overvalued.
Now, at 14, it's kind of pushing towards being OVERVALUED and when it's in OVERVALUED state, it doesn't last long. So, a lot of people are trying to figure out what they NEW range is for determining this state.
They took a jump for a day because of the hype around dividends and the 7 to 1 split. Right now, what's Apple trading at? 561 and a P/E of 14+. Now, will it stay there? who knows, we have to see how things get a little normal after the news once people get their head wrapped around yesterday's news. That's what typically happens after news like this.
What I am looking at is more of their new PLATEAU. Hitting a number is one thing, but STAYING at that price as a new plateau is another. I thought that after they do their stock split, it might hit $100, but I HIGHLY doubt it's going to stay long if it does. Time will tell on that one.
Now, if you want to talk about year to year growth rate, tell me over what time period. From today to a year from now? From the end of this fiscal year to the end of the year prior or the next year moving forward. BE VERY SPECIFIC on this, because you tend to confuse things and sometimes THINK I'm saying one thing when I'm not.
I am going to talk about over the next 12 months from TODAY. So, I think they have a likely chance of earnings growth of around 15% to 20% based on what i know, but a lot has to do with how they deal with iPhone production increases due to a spike in demand with them releasing a 5 inch model, refreshing 4 inch models, as well as refreshing other existing products. They CAN do it, it's just WILL they.