I don't mean to single you out, but there is great potential for health and wellness monitoring/prevention with the Apple Watch -- and the Watch Sensors are now open to developers.
Consider that 30% of the US population has high blood pressure -- ~100 million people.
Consider that 10% of the US population has diabetes -- ~30 million people.
These are potential [non-geek, non-fashion] users of the Apple Watch.
There are already 3rd-party testing/monitoring devices that interface the iPhone & soon will interface the Apple Watch.
I suspect that the next Apple Watch and/or 3rd-party devices will greatly extend the health and wellness monitoring/prevention capability.
Then, there's the whole dietary intake potential. What if you could tell your Apple Watch that you are treating yourself to In-N-Out: Fries, Vanilla Shake, Burger -- Animal Style. And the Watch (via the iPhone) could retrieve the dietary breakdown (Calories, Fat, Sodium, etc.) of the meal and save it along with your fitness information -- and suggest activities to compensate for your treat.
I have high blood pressure and take 6 different meds for that, plus a special diet. I recently had the 2nd of 2 eye cataract surgeries ... I take two different eyedrops 4 times per day (first week). After that, 1 drop three times a day for a week ... two times a day for a week ... once per day for a week ...
Its easy to get confused with diet, meds, eyedrops -- not to mention doctor/hospital visits, etc. (I depend on my daughter for transportation). We use a shared calendar on our Macs/iPads and Apple Watches.to coordinate all this ... It's kinda' kludgey, but it works! Now that I can see again, I think I'll take a stab at writing a couple of specific Watch/iPhone apps to make this easier.
My whole point here is that I believe the Apple Watch has much, much more potential than the iPad and iPhone that preceded it.
While I'm writing this, the Haas machining centers in my shop are cranking out parts. Wouldn't it be nice it my watch could track my production and alert me when my parts are ready to change? How about an Industrial kit Apple?
It isn't hard to imagine that a smartwatch could make industrial production much more efficient, but it would also go along way towards monitoring workers in hazardous environments. When I was much younger, I worked summers fighting wildfire. Now its common not only to have repeaters on fires for two way radios, but cell towers placed strategically for larger fires to reduce and maintain the two way radio traffic strictly for critical operations. A watch would go one step further and allow monitoring an individual's life signs for physical stress, and also provide alerts to hazards, especially weather/wind changes that are notable for fireline fatalities. Time is always critical in these situations.
I agree with you; I don't think the the first generation Watch has come anywhere close to tapping its future potential.
Not implying anything about non-GAAP measures -- they're fine as long as they're clearly explained and defined, and appropriate comparisons made to prior years using similar definitions -- but it's interesting to note that Apple reports no non-GAAP measures afaik.
If I am right about this, that takes a lot of discipline, and suggests the company just plays by the book, no more no less.
Not implying anything about non-GAAP measures -- they're fine as long as they're clearly explained and defined, and appropriate comparisons made to prior years using similar definitions -- but it's interesting to note that Apple reports no non-GAAP measures afaik.
At one point they did, 2008-2010.. That changed in 2010 because they were required to AFAIK, tho I could certainly be misunderstanding. I'm no seasoned investor. .
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to."
The watch is gonna be tremendously well positioned for Christmas. But I think the real surprise will be Christmas 2016. Watch for it!
it's amazing how Wall Street has no problem playing the long game with companies like Amazon but with Apple it's always what have you done for me lately and when Apple does deliver it then gets penalized because analysts don't think they can do it again. Weaker iPhone sales are D&G but then record iPhone sales are too because of "tougher comps". It's basically heads I win tails you lose.
At one point they did, 2008-2010.. That changed in 2010 because they were required to AFAIK, tho I could certainly be misunderstanding. I'm no seasoned investor. .
EDIT: There's an article here that includes discussion of it.
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to.
It's humorous that the link you posted seems to be very negative towards Apple in how it handled the changes and the posters (generally) had to push Mr. Wilcox to clarify his writing to support the facts and acknowledge specifically that Apple had not "surprised" anyone with the accounting change during that quarter.
Mr. Wilcox doesn't appear to have all his journalism ducks in a row as it were.
Edit;.( i accidentally erased part of the following response prior to post; I have corrected that)
I'm certain that you didn't select this singular article to link specific to your opinions.
It's humorous that the link you posted seems to be very negative towards Apple in how it handled the changes and the posters (generally) had to push Mr. Wilcox to clarify his writing to support the facts and acknowledge specifically that Apple had not "surprised" anyone with the accounting change during that quarter.
Mr. Wilcox doesn't appear to have all his journalism ducks in a row as it were.
I'm certain that you didn't select this singular article to link specific
Its the first one I came across. Feel free to link a different article that explains it in terms you like better. I didn't see one right off.
Its the first one I came across. Feel free to link a different article that explains it in terms you like better. I didn't see one right off.
Nah, it isn't even an issue.
I just thought it was funny how Mr. Wilcox was being chastised as an MS fanboy (by a few posters) for his poor journalism. Even now I come across MS fanboys touting how Windows 10 is the premier ecosystem and how that will change everything. Maybe, but it's unlikely that it will take any share from either Apple or Google in mobile. That ship has sailed. Best that MS bulk up its Office/Azure offering for iOS and Android OS.
At one point they did, 2008-2010.. That changed in 2010 because they were required to AFAIK, tho I could certainly be misunderstanding. I'm no seasoned investor. .
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to."
Yes, you're misinterpreting it. In a major way.
Apple reported its iPhone sales from 2007-2010 based on what it thought was the appropriate GAAP-based revenue recognition principle then. This was necessitated by the fact that most iPhones were bought on installment plans from ATT. Although ATT paid Apple cash up front for the cost of the iPhone, Apple thought it would be prudent to count only a portion of it as revenue, and recognize the rest as revenue over the next seven quarters. (This is similar to the 'percent completion' revenue recognition rule used in construction contracts).
As a result, Apple's true revenue and income were understated in a significant way.
Resulting from a newer interpretation in 2010, Apple decided to recognize much more of the revenue up front. (There is still a portion that is recognized over the next seven quarters, to account for the possibility of default on two-year cell phone contracts).
Apple was simply being conservative, and entirely within GAAP rules. In other words, there has been, afaik, no non-GAPP reporting on Apple's part.
Apple reported its iPhone sales from 2007-2010 based on what it thought was the appropriate GAAP-based revenue recognition principle then. This was necessitated by the fact that most iPhones were bought on installment plans from ATT. Although ATT paid Apple cash up front for the cost of the iPhone, Apple thought it would be prudent to count only a portion of it as revenue, and recognize the rest as revenue over the next seven quarters. (This is similar to the 'percent completion' revenue recognition rule used in construction contracts).
As a result, Apple's true revenue and income were understated in a significant way.
Resulting from a newer into interpretation in 2010, Apple decided to recognize much more of the revenue up front. (There is still a portion that is recognized over the next seven quarters, to account for the possibility of default on two-year cell phone contracts).
Apple was simply being conservative, and entire within GAAP rules. In other words, there has been, afaik, no non-GAPP reporting on Apple's part.
Currently? I agree. Previous to 2010? Yes sir they did.
"In accordance with the subscription accounting treatment required by GAAP, the Company recognizes revenue and cost of goods sold for iPhone™ and Apple TV® over their estimated economic lives. Adjusting GAAP sales and product costs to eliminate the impact of subscription accounting, the corresponding non-GAAP measures* for the quarter are $12.25 billion of “Adjusted Sales” and $2.85 billion of “Adjusted Net Income.” https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/19Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html
Nonsense. No one 'lobbies' for accounting rules. There is a very careful and deliberate process, and it's not the government that decides, but something called the Financial Accounting Standrads Board (FASB), which comprises CPAs, academics, accounting firms, etc.
Anyone can submit an opinion on what they think is most effective way of communicating to investors. The FASB can reject it or adopt it, depending on whether they believe it makes logical sense from an accounting viewpoint. Period.
At one point they did, 2008-2010.. That changed in 2010 because they were required to AFAIK, tho I could certainly be misunderstanding. I'm no seasoned investor. .
EDIT: There's an article here that includes discussion of it.
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to."
Apple may have been "required to AFAIK" but as your second link states, Apple and other companies with software portfolios lobbied to make that happen. That certainly changes the context of your post.
Nonsense. No one 'lobbies' for accounting rules. There is a very careful and deliberate process, and it's not the government that decides, but something called the Financial Accounting Standrads Board (FASB), which comprises CPAs, academics, accounting firms, etc.
Anyone can submit an opinion on what they think is most effective way of communicating to investors. The FASB can reject it or adopt it, depending on whether they believe it makes logical sense from an accounting viewpoint. Period.
Maybe "lobbied" isn't the correct word, but Apple, et al, might have been involved in discussions with FASB to consider that change. It's not like it has any significant effect on long term revenue, just a more granular approach to accounting.
Apple reported its iPhone sales from 2007-2010 based on what it thought was the appropriate GAAP-based revenue recognition principle then. This was necessitated by the fact that most iPhones were bought on installment plans from ATT. Although ATT paid Apple cash up front for the cost of the iPhone, Apple thought it would be prudent to count only a portion of it as revenue, and recognize the rest as revenue over the next seven quarters. (This is similar to the 'percent completion' revenue recognition rule used in construction contracts).
As a result, Apple's true revenue and income were understated in a significant way.
Resulting from a newer into interpretation in 2010, Apple decided to recognize much more of the revenue up front. (There is still a portion that is recognized over the next seven quarters, to account for the possibility of default on two-year cell phone contracts).
Apple was simply being conservative, and entire within GAAP rules. In other words, there has been, afaik, no non-GAPP reporting on Apple's part.
Currently? I agree. Previous to 2010? Yes sir they did.
"In accordance with the subscription accounting treatment required by GAAP, the Company recognizes revenue and cost of goods sold for iPhone™ and Apple TV® over their estimated economic lives. Adjusting GAAP sales and product costs to eliminate the impact of subscription accounting, the corresponding non-GAAP measures* for the quarter are $12.25 billion of “Adjusted Sales” and $2.85 billion of “Adjusted Net Income.” https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/19Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html
Fair enough. Good find. (Interesting to see, however, that this non-GAAP measure subsequently became the GAAP measure!).
Maybe "lobbied" isn't the correct word, but Apple, et al, might have been involved in discussions with FASB to consider that change. It's not like it has any significant effect on long term revenue, just a more granular approach to accounting.
Most certainly Apple had discussions with them. That would be no different from you and I having a discussion with them. The only thing that would prevail would be, 'who had a better argument.'
You should read more.
"While Steve Jobs was preparing to introduce the new Apple iPod nano last week, the company’s chief accountant, Betsy Rafael, was sending off a second letter to the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to revenue recognition. At issue: how FASB might rework the rules related to recognizing revenue for software that’s bundled into a product and never sold separately." http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2009/09/new-revenue-recognition-rules-the-apple-of-apples-eye/
You should read more.
"While Steve Jobs was preparing to introduce the new Apple iPod nano last week, the company’s chief accountant, Betsy Rafael, was sending off a second letter to the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to revenue recognition. At issue: how FASB might rework the rules related to recognizing revenue for software that’s bundled into a product and never sold separately." http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2009/09/new-revenue-recognition-rules-the-apple-of-apples-eye/
The CFO article is plainly dumb. It says, for instance, "In theory, a successful launch — and its attendant revenue — would drive up Apple’s earnings, and possibly stock price, in the same quarter the product is introduced, according to several news reports that came out earlier this week."
It assumes that investors can't add or subtract. Give me a break.
The FASB links are fine. They say nothing about 'lobbying.'
You can keep proving all the links you want, but there is no 'lobbying' here. Period. See my response to tmay above.
"While Steve Jobs was preparing to introduce the new Apple iPod nano last week, the company’s chief accountant, Betsy Rafael, was sending off a second letter to the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to revenue recognition. At issue: how FASB might rework the rules related to recognizing revenue for software that’s bundled into a product and never sold separately."
The CFO article is plainly dumb. It says, for instance, "In theory, a successful launch — and its attendant revenue — would drive up Apple’s earnings, and possibly stock price, in the same quarter the product is introduced, according to several news reports that came out earlier this week."
It assumes that investors can't add or subtract. Give me a break.
The FASB links are fine. They say nothing about 'lobbying.'
You can keep proving all the links you want, but there is no 'lobbying' here. Period. See my response to tmay above.
Isn't lobbying an effort to make sure your companies/organizations interests are considered and understood with regard to potential rule-making and laws? Yes sir those letters are absolutely examples of lobbying IMHO. How do you define lobbying?
The CFO article is plainly dumb. It says, for instance, "In theory, a successful launch — and its attendant revenue — would drive up Apple’s earnings, and possibly stock price, in the same quarter the product is introduced, according to several news reports that came out earlier this week."
It assumes that investors can't add or subtract. Give me a break.
The FASB links are fine. They say nothing about 'lobbying.'
You can keep proving all the links you want, but there is no 'lobbying' here. Period. See my response to tmay above.
Isn't lobbying an effort to make sure your companies/organizations interests are considered and understood with regard to potential rule-making and laws? Yes sir those letters are absolutely examples of lobbying IMHO. How do you define lobbying?
Comments
I don't mean to single you out, but there is great potential for health and wellness monitoring/prevention with the Apple Watch -- and the Watch Sensors are now open to developers.
Consider that 30% of the US population has high blood pressure -- ~100 million people.
Consider that 10% of the US population has diabetes -- ~30 million people.
These are potential [non-geek, non-fashion] users of the Apple Watch.
There are already 3rd-party testing/monitoring devices that interface the iPhone & soon will interface the Apple Watch.
I suspect that the next Apple Watch and/or 3rd-party devices will greatly extend the health and wellness monitoring/prevention capability.
Then, there's the whole dietary intake potential. What if you could tell your Apple Watch that you are treating yourself to In-N-Out: Fries, Vanilla Shake, Burger -- Animal Style. And the Watch (via the iPhone) could retrieve the dietary breakdown (Calories, Fat, Sodium, etc.) of the meal and save it along with your fitness information -- and suggest activities to compensate for your treat.
I have high blood pressure and take 6 different meds for that, plus a special diet. I recently had the 2nd of 2 eye cataract surgeries ... I take two different eyedrops 4 times per day (first week). After that, 1 drop three times a day for a week ... two times a day for a week ... once per day for a week ...
Its easy to get confused with diet, meds, eyedrops -- not to mention doctor/hospital visits, etc. (I depend on my daughter for transportation). We use a shared calendar on our Macs/iPads and Apple Watches.to coordinate all this ... It's kinda' kludgey, but it works! Now that I can see again, I think I'll take a stab at writing a couple of specific Watch/iPhone apps to make this easier.
My whole point here is that I believe the Apple Watch has much, much more potential than the iPad and iPhone that preceded it.
While I'm writing this, the Haas machining centers in my shop are cranking out parts. Wouldn't it be nice it my watch could track my production and alert me when my parts are ready to change? How about an Industrial kit Apple?
It isn't hard to imagine that a smartwatch could make industrial production much more efficient, but it would also go along way towards monitoring workers in hazardous environments. When I was much younger, I worked summers fighting wildfire. Now its common not only to have repeaters on fires for two way radios, but cell towers placed strategically for larger fires to reduce and maintain the two way radio traffic strictly for critical operations. A watch would go one step further and allow monitoring an individual's life signs for physical stress, and also provide alerts to hazards, especially weather/wind changes that are notable for fireline fatalities. Time is always critical in these situations.
I agree with you; I don't think the the first generation Watch has come anywhere close to tapping its future potential.
Not implying anything about non-GAAP measures -- they're fine as long as they're clearly explained and defined, and appropriate comparisons made to prior years using similar definitions -- but it's interesting to note that Apple reports no non-GAAP measures afaik.
If I am right about this, that takes a lot of discipline, and suggests the company just plays by the book, no more no less.
EDIT: There's an article here that includes discussion of it.
http://betanews.com/2010/01/26/once-you-dig-deeper-apple-s-record-quarter-is-not-so-impressive/#comments
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to."
it's amazing how Wall Street has no problem playing the long game with companies like Amazon but with Apple it's always what have you done for me lately and when Apple does deliver it then gets penalized because analysts don't think they can do it again. Weaker iPhone sales are D&G but then record iPhone sales are too because of "tougher comps". It's basically heads I win tails you lose.
At one point they did, 2008-2010.. That changed in 2010 because they were required to AFAIK, tho I could certainly be misunderstanding. I'm no seasoned investor. .
EDIT: There's an article here that includes discussion of it.
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to.
http://betanews.com/2010/01/26/once-you-dig-deeper-apple-s-record-quarter-is-not-so-impressive/#comments
It's humorous that the link you posted seems to be very negative towards Apple in how it handled the changes and the posters (generally) had to push Mr. Wilcox to clarify his writing to support the facts and acknowledge specifically that Apple had not "surprised" anyone with the accounting change during that quarter.
Mr. Wilcox doesn't appear to have all his journalism ducks in a row as it were.
Edit;.( i accidentally erased part of the following response prior to post; I have corrected that)
I'm certain that you didn't select this singular article to link specific to your opinions.
EDIT: Here ya go. This one should please you more. It still points out that Apple's accounting change was because of requirements, tho one Apple lobbied for along with a few other companies;
http://fortune.com/2009/09/24/apples-2009-earnings-up-nearly-44-under-new-accounting-rules-analyst/
http://fortune.com/2009/09/14/accounting-rule-change-in-apples-favor/
Its the first one I came across. Feel free to link a different article that explains it in terms you like better. I didn't see one right off.
Nah, it isn't even an issue.
I just thought it was funny how Mr. Wilcox was being chastised as an MS fanboy (by a few posters) for his poor journalism. Even now I come across MS fanboys touting how Windows 10 is the premier ecosystem and how that will change everything. Maybe, but it's unlikely that it will take any share from either Apple or Google in mobile. That ship has sailed. Best that MS bulk up its Office/Azure offering for iOS and Android OS.
Yes, you're misinterpreting it. In a major way.
Apple reported its iPhone sales from 2007-2010 based on what it thought was the appropriate GAAP-based revenue recognition principle then. This was necessitated by the fact that most iPhones were bought on installment plans from ATT. Although ATT paid Apple cash up front for the cost of the iPhone, Apple thought it would be prudent to count only a portion of it as revenue, and recognize the rest as revenue over the next seven quarters. (This is similar to the 'percent completion' revenue recognition rule used in construction contracts).
As a result, Apple's true revenue and income were understated in a significant way.
Resulting from a newer interpretation in 2010, Apple decided to recognize much more of the revenue up front. (There is still a portion that is recognized over the next seven quarters, to account for the possibility of default on two-year cell phone contracts).
Apple was simply being conservative, and entirely within GAAP rules. In other words, there has been, afaik, no non-GAPP reporting on Apple's part.
Currently? I agree. Previous to 2010? Yes sir they did.
"In accordance with the subscription accounting treatment required by GAAP, the Company recognizes revenue and cost of goods sold for iPhone™ and Apple TV® over their estimated economic lives. Adjusting GAAP sales and product costs to eliminate the impact of subscription accounting, the corresponding non-GAAP measures* for the quarter are $12.25 billion of “Adjusted Sales” and $2.85 billion of “Adjusted Net Income.”
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/19Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html
Nonsense. No one 'lobbies' for accounting rules. There is a very careful and deliberate process, and it's not the government that decides, but something called the Financial Accounting Standrads Board (FASB), which comprises CPAs, academics, accounting firms, etc.
Anyone can submit an opinion on what they think is most effective way of communicating to investors. The FASB can reject it or adopt it, depending on whether they believe it makes logical sense from an accounting viewpoint. Period.
At one point they did, 2008-2010.. That changed in 2010 because they were required to AFAIK, tho I could certainly be misunderstanding. I'm no seasoned investor. .
EDIT: There's an article here that includes discussion of it.
http://betanews.com/2010/01/26/once-you-dig-deeper-apple-s-record-quarter-is-not-so-impressive/#comments
"In September (2009?), the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.
Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to."
Apple may have been "required to AFAIK" but as your second link states, Apple and other companies with software portfolios lobbied to make that happen. That certainly changes the context of your post.
Nonsense. No one 'lobbies' for accounting rules. There is a very careful and deliberate process, and it's not the government that decides, but something called the Financial Accounting Standrads Board (FASB), which comprises CPAs, academics, accounting firms, etc.
Anyone can submit an opinion on what they think is most effective way of communicating to investors. The FASB can reject it or adopt it, depending on whether they believe it makes logical sense from an accounting viewpoint. Period.
Maybe "lobbied" isn't the correct word, but Apple, et al, might have been involved in discussions with FASB to consider that change. It's not like it has any significant effect on long term revenue, just a more granular approach to accounting.
Fair enough. Good find. (Interesting to see, however, that this non-GAAP measure subsequently became the GAAP measure!).
Most certainly Apple had discussions with them. That would be no different from you and I having a discussion with them. The only thing that would prevail would be, 'who had a better argument.'
"While Steve Jobs was preparing to introduce the new Apple iPod nano last week, the company’s chief accountant, Betsy Rafael, was sending off a second letter to the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to revenue recognition. At issue: how FASB might rework the rules related to recognizing revenue for software that’s bundled into a product and never sold separately."
http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2009/09/new-revenue-recognition-rules-the-apple-of-apples-eye/
And here are the presumably "imaginary" letters sent to the FASB lobbying for the change:
http://www.fasb.org/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobnocache=true&blobwhere=1175819517064&blobheader=application/pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Length&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue2=2548052&blobheadervalue1=filename=0015-_EITF08010903_APPLE_RAFAEL.pdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs
http://www.fasb.org/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobnocache=true&blobwhere=1175819517003&blobheader=application/pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Length&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue2=915781&blobheadervalue1=filename=0015A-_EITF08010903_APPLE_Rafael.pdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs
FWIW the first letter alludes to conversations Apple had with the FASB prior to the request for comments that Apple submitted a written response to.
The CFO article is plainly dumb. It says, for instance, "In theory, a successful launch — and its attendant revenue — would drive up Apple’s earnings, and possibly stock price, in the same quarter the product is introduced, according to several news reports that came out earlier this week."
It assumes that investors can't add or subtract. Give me a break.
The FASB links are fine. They say nothing about 'lobbying.'
You can keep proving all the links you want, but there is no 'lobbying' here. Period. See my response to tmay above.
You should read more.
"While Steve Jobs was preparing to introduce the new Apple iPod nano last week, the company’s chief accountant, Betsy Rafael, was sending off a second letter to the Financial Accounting Standards Board related to revenue recognition. At issue: how FASB might rework the rules related to recognizing revenue for software that’s bundled into a product and never sold separately."
http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2009/09/new-revenue-recognition-rules-the-apple-of-apples-eye/
And here are the presumably "imaginary" letters sent to the FASB lobbying for the change:
http://www.fasb.org/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobnocache=true&blobwhere=1175819517064&blobheader=application/pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Length&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue2=2548052&blobheadervalue1=filename=0015-_EITF08010903_APPLE_RAFAEL.pdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs
http://www.fasb.org/cs/BlobServer?blobkey=id&blobnocache=true&blobwhere=1175819517003&blobheader=application/pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Length&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue2=915781&blobheadervalue1=filename=0015A-_EITF08010903_APPLE_Rafael.pdf&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs
FWIW the first letter alludes to conversations Apple had with the FASB prior to the request for comments that Apple submitted a written response to.
Good find.
Thanks.
For fcuk's sake, move along. Sir.
Or look up a dictionary. Here, let me help: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lobby