Apple profits rise 26% on sales of 2.6M Macs, 6.8M iPhones

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 83
    Now: $102.73



    Update: $103.21
  • Reply 42 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PXT View Post


    Jobs on netbooks: "We have some pretty itneresting ideas if the category evolves"



    I thought that was a revealing comment, more revealing than his earlier, "it's a nascent segment..." remark, which he repeated today.



    Conclusion: If you want an apple-branded netbook, pray for the segment to succeed.



    And what's success? Apple sold what, 2.6 million macs in the quarter? What do you think apple would need to see, 10M netbooks per quarter in sales among the existing vendors? Or...? Does anyone know where to get numbers of netbooks sold? Surely someone's tracking that.



    On a different point, though they seemed to hint at it initially, they seem to be more interested in adding features than in lowering prices, particularly in the iPhone and Macs. That opens up speculation. GPS, video chat in iPhones? Push f/w or a multi-function port down to the MBs? Enhance some of that potential GPU-providing-a-boost-to-CPU-tasks, in the MBP? Or....?



    Doesn't seem like our AppleTVs will be much prettier in June than they are now. I didn't hear anyone suggesting they were eager to add lipstick to that...uhhh...product.
  • Reply 43 of 83
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Talk about numbers that don't add up. This charlatan from Morgan Stanley lowballed AAPL's EPS by a mid boggling 26 cents per share! She was off by 25%! How wrong can one person be? She missed the gross margins by 1.8%! She lowballed the revenue by $135 million. Her repeated hair-brain predictions have cost AAPL billions in market cap. She's a disgrace! Morgan Stanley should fire her and AAPL shareholders should sue Morgan Stanley. I hope Kathryn Huberty rots in hell!
  • Reply 44 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtdunham View Post


    I thought that was a revealing comment, more revealing than his earlier, "it's a nascent segment..." remark, which he repeated today.



    Conclusion: If you want an apple-branded netbook, pray for the segment to succeed.



    And what's success? Apple sold what, 2.6 million macs in the quarter? What do you think apple would need to see, 10M netbooks per quarter in sales among the existing vendors? Or...? Does anyone know where to get numbers of netbooks sold? Surely someone's tracking that.



    If it does succeed, it obviously more likely for Apple to enter that market segment. They do tend to follow then lead in that area, but I doubt it'll be the $300-$500 netbook you see with others. I would probably be about the same screen size, but would it have a $20 Atom CPU or a $300 22mm^2 C2D? Would it be a cheap plastic mold or more of there aluminium milled machines? It sounds like Apple would enter it with a smaller footprint MBA at around MacBook prices in order to get a worthwhile return.

    Q: Can you comment about the pricing of the Mac line? And thoughts about netbooks?



    A: This particular downturn is not creating a market of cheaper computers. That market has existed. There are parts of that market we choose not to play in. We choose to be in certain segments of the market, and choose not to be in certain segments. Will the downturn drive customers to different cheaper products? I'd be surprised if that happened in large numbers. I think there are a tremendous number of customers that we don't have that would like to and can afford to buy Apple products. We'll see what the ratio of those two are, but we're not tremendously worried. The netbook: not aot of them getting sold, one of our entrants into that category is the iPhone. Browsing, connectivity, etc... the iPhone is a pretty good solution to that. We'll see how the netbook evolves, and we have some pretty interesting ideas if it does evolve.
  • Reply 45 of 83
    pxtpxt Posts: 683member
    I wonder how much add-on profit Apple make from the iPhone platform. From %'s of Apps sold etc.



    I'm guessing this is not like iTunes where they only make enough money to cover the costs of the iTunes store, but that they actually get to keep some of that 30%.
  • Reply 46 of 83
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 1,462member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post


    Personally, I'd prefer they used some of that cash to lower margins. They'd make it up in volume. But what can you say to a company that's firing on all cylinders except keep doing what you're doing.



    Scenario: You run a lawn-cutting business, and have higher margins than the rest of the kids on the block. You're booked solid because people are happy with your service. They are more than willing to pay your price.



    Would you really think about lowering your margins? That goes against business sense.
  • Reply 47 of 83
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post


    Talk about numbers that don't add up. This charlatan from Morgan Stanley lowballed AAPL's EPS by a mid boggling 26 cents per share! She was off by 25%! How wrong can one person be? She missed the gross margins by 1.8%! She lowballed the revenue by $135 million. Her repeated hair-brain predictions have cost AAPL billions in market cap. She's a disgrace! Morgan Stanley should fire her and AAPL shareholders should sue Morgan Stanley. I hope Kathryn Huberty rots in hell!



    Then you should also yell at Apple's CFO for lowballing EPS off by 30%+.
  • Reply 48 of 83
    103.70 @ 6:55



    WOW. I wonder who sold 29,426 shares at 6:55 !!!!!
  • Reply 49 of 83
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,791member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by walshbj View Post


    up 2% at the beginning of the call.



    points of interest:

    selling more ipods than any other non-holiday quarter. That's big, everyone has been making noise about iPhone eating into ipod sales.



    It is not a point of interest at all because iPod sales have very little to do with iPhone sales. I'm not sure at all why the iPhone can be seen as eating iPod sales as they are more or less in the same family. That would be like saying Shuffle east nano sales and nano eats Touch sales. Nothing could be further from the truth as each device serves different markets. This can be seen by people actually owning two or more of the devices.

    Quote:



    Biggest non-holiday quarter ever? Nice.



    Yeah it certainly is. I'd like to see how "Back to School" did.

    Quote:



    Stupid as the analyst-system can be, you get dinged when you don't meet their expectations. You have to believe that those expectations are responsible for part of the share price at any point in time.



    Well that is part of the ugliness of the wall street system unfortunately sites like Appleinsider give these guys a voice. Frankly the less that gets reported the better. I mean it would be useful if these so called analyst actual dug up some useful info or dirt but frankly it look more like a guessing game. Frankly the worst thing about the current era is that we have so little going on with respect to good journalism. All we get is the constant fear mongering about the world overheating.

    Quote:



    backtomac: I think you need to provide more info on what you mean about the iphone numbers - otherwise you don't really have much of a point there.



    In any event I think Apple has already set themselves up for the Christmas shopping season rather well. The new portables are hot to say the least. The iPod update was OK but really missed on the capacity front. If they come out with a new Mini I could see them having the hottest Christmas in years no matter what happens with the economy. Apple products simply offer good value.



    Dave
  • Reply 50 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post


    Scenario: You run a lawn-cutting business, and have higher margins than the rest of the kids on the block. You're booked solid because people are happy with your service. They are more than willing to pay your price.



    Would you really think about lowering your margins? That goes against business sense.



    The problem with your analogy isn't that apple is "booked solid". They could sell two or three or five times as many macs as they do today. High margins aren't always the best if they mean sacrificing total sales.
  • Reply 51 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    High margins aren't always the best if they mean sacrificing total sales.



    And high sales aren't good if you are sacrificing your margins. It's easy to drop a price in an economic downturn, nearly impossible ot successfully bring back up when the economy strengthens. As we've seen, Apple's higher-end, simple boutique-like model has allowed it to brave poor management and economic hazards. Now that it's thriving selling 5x as many crappy $500 machines to make same profit of a single MacBook sale makes as much sense as having to sell 10 copies of OS X to Dell to make the same profit as one MacBook sale.
  • Reply 52 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The iPod update was OK but really missed on the capacity front.



    How so? The word is they doubled the IPod Nano capacity when they didn't want to because of the Zune's doubling. The Shuffle doesn't need a capacity bump, and the iPod Touch's can't do 64GB without costing way too much. Remember, that isn't a 2.5" SSD in the device, but 2x32GB SDHC-sized Flash chips.
  • Reply 53 of 83
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,791member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    How so? The word is they doubled the IPod Nano capacity when they didn't want to because of the Zune's doubling. The Shuffle doesn't need a capacity bump, and the iPod Touch's can't do 64GB without costing way too much. Remember, that isn't a 2.5" SSD in the device, but 2x32GB SDHC-sized Flash chips.



    I'm maybe under the wrong impression here but they did not double the Touches capacity and that is what I was referring to. My Fault for not being specific about the new Touch. In any event isn't the new Touch limited to one Flash device. That is all I saw in the on line photos.



    In any event the lack of a 64GB Touch puts a big hole in Apples iPod line up in my estimation. I really want this hole filled. But that is really the only negative with respect to the new Touches as otherwise they are a very nice update.



    Dave
  • Reply 54 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    In any event isn't the new Touch limited to one Flash device. That is all I saw in the on line photos.



    If it is, then it makes the situation even more expensive.



    Quote:

    In any event the lack of a 64GB Touch puts a big hole in Apples iPod line up in my estimation. I really want this hole filled. But that is really the only negative with respect to the new Touches as otherwise they are a very nice update.



    They only added the iPod Touch a year ago with 8GB and 16Gb capacities. Then in Jan/Feb, only about 6 months later, doubled the iPhone to 16GB and the Touch to 32GB. Doubling 2x a year just isn't possible with the technology, much less making the price viable.



    I wonder what they are going to do since doubling the iPhone to 32GB would seem like a good move, even if the Touch can't go to 64GB right away, but when will the next doubling of the happen? At the rate of 2x year then the Touch will be over 1TB in 2 years. or 4 years if you double it once a year.



    edit: The first one had 2 Toshiba chips, the new one has a single Micron chip.
  • Reply 55 of 83
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


    Where did you find that? The AI News says: AAPLt 91.49 ( -6.95 ) at this time.



    http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL



    As of now:

    After Hours: 103.70 +12.21 (13.35%) - Oct 21, 7:55PM EDT
  • Reply 56 of 83
    "It is not a point of interest at all because iPod sales have very little to do with iPhone sales. I'm not sure at all why the iPhone can be seen as eating iPod sales as they are more or less in the same family. That would be like saying Shuffle east nano sales and nano eats Touch sales. Nothing could be further from the truth as each device serves different markets. This can be seen by people actually owning two or more of the devices."



    Actually, for me, I never plan to buy another non-shuffle and I had an iPod classic before hand so yes, iPhone sales do in fact hurt iPod sales. It should be blatantly obvious by the fact that SJ himself said the touch is little more than an iPhone sans the phone part.



    My sister is doing the same thing - she's holding off on a touch because she's going to get an iPhone sometime soon but in the mean time rather than buy another nano she's going to buy a shuffle. No idea in the world why you think iPhone sales don't hurt iPod sales - well - unless of course you think the iPhone is an iPod itself.
  • Reply 57 of 83
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 716member
    Price x Quantity = Total Revenue. No one knows the price that maximizes Total Revenue. You won't see Apple playing around with various prices and waiting around to see where the volume comes in at. That would be incredibly inefficient and destructive in their market. What they do is come up with their best guess and run with it.



    My guess is the price point that would maximize total revenue is a bit lower than the prices they are at today. For those that knee-jerk the point that Apple doesn't want to be in a market selling $500 junk, I agree. But I still think the current prices are higher than need be.



    I'm also not saying they are misjudging it by a lot. If I were the CEO, there would be small modifications across the product line.



    For a great example of how to do it wrong, look no further than Adobe. Photoshop prices are abusive and discourage sane customers from purchasing.
  • Reply 58 of 83
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post


    Actually, for me, I never plan to buy another non-shuffle and I had an iPod classic before hand so yes, iPhone sales do in fact hurt iPod sales. It should be blatantly obvious by the fact that SJ himself said the touch is little more than an iPhone sans the phone part.



    My sister is doing the same thing - she's holding off on a touch because she's going to get an iPhone sometime soon but in the mean time rather than buy another nano she's going to buy a shuffle. No idea in the world why you think iPhone sales don't hurt iPod sales - well - unless of course you think the iPhone is an iPod itself.



    Me too. I no longer need an iPod Nano, because the iPod shuffle is great for the gym/jogging, and the iPhone handles all my other iPod needs. If not for the iPhone I would have probably gotten iPod Touch as i do like the videos and Safari aspect of it. I think it's obvious that the iPhone has cannibalized a good percentage of the iPod sales.
  • Reply 59 of 83
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post


    Price x Quantity = Total Revenue. No one knows the price that maximizes Total Revenue. You won't see Apple playing around with various prices and waiting around to see where the volume comes in at. That would be incredibly inefficient and destructive in their market. What they do is come up with their best guess and run with it.



    My guess is the price point that would maximize total revenue is a bit lower than the prices they are at today. For those that knee-jerk the point that Apple doesn't want to be in a market selling $500 junk, I agree. But I still think the current prices are higher than need be.



    I'm also not saying they are misjudging it by a lot. If I were the CEO, there would be small modifications across the product line.



    For a great example of how to do it wrong, look no further than Adobe. Photoshop prices are abusive and discourage sane customers from purchasing.



    Isn't this just another application/theory similar to reaganomics? At what point does lowering taxes spur so much growth that the revenue actually increases. Hmm...



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reganomics



    It did work but the only question is could it have done better?
  • Reply 60 of 83
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,791member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If it is, then it makes the situation even more expensive.



    Well if it indeed a single flash device then it shows that it wouldn't have cost to much to double capacity on a two flash device. In any event this thread has me wondering just what the facts are with respect to the new Touch. Need to find the definitive answer. I know at this time Micron didn't have any 32GB chips advertised on their web site, but that doesn't mean they don't have something running off the lines right now for Apple.

    Quote:





    They only added the iPod Touch a year ago with 8GB and 16Gb capacities. Then in Jan/Feb, only about 6 months later, doubled the iPhone to 16GB and the Touch to 32GB. Doubling 2x a year just isn't possible with the technology, much less making the price viable.



    I guess it depends. If Touch does have a single 32GB flash device in it, then obviously the cost isn't so bad that a model with two flash devices wouldn't have been viable. In any event it was a bit of a shock that Apple didn't more aggressively address the storage issue on Touch, even if that meant a device with three flash modules.

    Quote:



    I wonder what they are going to do since doubling the iPhone to 32GB would seem like a good move, even if the Touch can't go to 64GB right away, but when will the next doubling of the happen? At the rate of 2x year then the Touch will be over 1TB in 2 years. or 4 years if you double it once a year.



    I think the flash industry doubles every 18 months or so. Doesn't really matter as users have demands. Personally I liked to see Touch double every year no matter what Apple has to do to accomplish that. Of course I'd like to see a return of the Firewire interface on iPods too, but we all know that won't happen. The goal here is simple, off load all media storage from my Laptop, which I can't do on my iPhone nor on a Touch. Actually I'd go a step farther and have a two devices so one functionally becomes a backup for the other. Half a terabyte sounds about right at the moment.



    Of course I'm not sure if USB can really handle this sort of usage well. The thing is iTunes is becoming more attractive by the minute. I especially like the idea of movie/TV downloads. If you decide to keep a series that can be close to two GB at a time. Now I know Apple gots this idea that all you need to do is to store iPod specific copies on your Touch/iPhone. Frankly I think that is a big mistake and would like iPod-'whateve'r to become my media storage device for all media be it optimized for iPod or not.

    Quote:



    edit: The first one had 2 Toshiba chips, the new one has a single Micron chip.



    Yeah that sort of is the point. The 32 GB iPod sort of puts a top end limit on the price of that 32GB flash chip. Considering the price of a 32GB Touch, a 64 GB model is not impossible. Well except for the possibility of constrained production. I suspect that this also means they could update 3G at any time to 32GB.



    It appears to be another case of Apple selecting form over function. At least if storage is a significant function for you. If not for the storage issue the updated Touch would be awesome, but now it is just outstanding.



    Dave
Sign In or Register to comment.