I think the flash industry doubles every 18 months or so. Doesn't really matter as users have demands.
Or what Apple demands. And that is the bleeding edge, where price is not good for consumer.
Quote:
Personally I liked to see Touch double every year no matter what Apple has to do to accomplish that.
That just isn't rationale to expect a doubling every year, of the 6 months you mentioned earlier with expecting a 64GB Touch back in September. If you expect a 64GB Touch in 2009, then 128GB in 2010, 256GB in 2011, 512GB in 2012, 1TB in 2013, 2TB in 2014, 4TB in 2015, 8TB in 2016, 16TB in 2017, 32TB in 2018.
Quote:
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.
I can't find a single 64GB chip on the market, so how is that possible. Apple would have to use two chips which means going to a thicker iPod Touch. Not just for the additional ship, but for the controller and a larger battery would be needed to maintain the same battery performance as you now have two chips sucking power.
Quote:
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.
But you're not alone. Many people expect Apple to somehow turn water into wine. Each revision can't see a doubling because it's 3-4x faster than the chips are available. Then there is production ramp up to consider, costs, and other technical aspects. It just doesn't make sense.
As for form over function, the functionality has increased with the new Touch, but the move to single chip is form over upgradability , because now they can't use 32GB+16GB chips in January for concatenated a 48GB version, which the 64GB version arriving in September of that year, and so on. They could do that every 9 months for so for focused and predictable progression in capacity.
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.
I actually don't believe you here because what you need in the future is unknown at this point. But lets say you do buy a shuffle, you don't call that eating into Nano sales, Touch sales or classic sales do you? It just isn't a valid argument as each device has a specific market segment it plays to (pun intended).
As to Touch its very existence highlights that there is a market for such a device outside of the cell industry. The fact is it is a very large market. Touch doesn't eat into iPhone sales because its whole reason for its existence is to pick up sales from people that don't want a iPhone. It provides the Touch experience in a device devoid of iPhone problems.
Quote:
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.
Sounds like your sister is more interested in copying you than anything else. Which is her right to do, but what you have to understand is that it is pretty clear that not everybody in the market place sees things the way you do. In fact I'm willing to say very few do. As to the shuffle people either hate it or love it depending on how they deal with the interface.
Quote:
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.
That is simple look at the sales numbers. Best non holiday period ever! One can dig in the barrel of improvised thoughts all day but it is more productive to dig in the barrel of reported facts. iPod sales are shockingly hot and their really isn't much interaction between the "pods" and the "iPhone". Part of that due to the expensive iPhone contract.
Now Apple has as much said that they need to protect the lower end of the iPhone market. So I fully expect to see a lower cost iPhone come out soon. Possibly one aimed at or modelled after the nano. Depending on the contract or lack of, that unit might have significant impact on "pod" sales. As it is now one can't say that based on sales numbers.
Apples toughest problem is maintaining this forward movement through tough times. This brings us back tot he issue of perceived value. If anything the iPhone could drive more sales of things like the Touch based devices instead of "eating" sales.
I actually don't believe you here because what you need in the future is unknown at this point. But lets say you do buy a shuffle, you don't call that eating into Nano sales, Touch sales or classic sales do you? It just isn't a valid argument as each device has a specific market segment it plays to (pun intended).
They do have their own market segment, but that doesn't mean that segments don't cross each other. Bigmc6000, I and others all seem to be doing the same thing. Dropping our iPod Classics and iPod Nanos for a cheap Shuffle and iPhone. This is not unusual, and quite good that Apple is cannibalizing iPod sales with another product of theirs.
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...
It did work but the only question is could it have done better?
Yeah it did work along with a lot of positive thinking. The problem is we have not elected anybody since that can assemble the economic team the quality of Reagans. Even worst what we have to choose from now (this election) is appalling.
It isn't so much the tax platform that each candidate has but rather the total lack of vision and a healthy respect for others. So when you are sitting in that booth how do you make your decision?
Personally I'm going to vote for Palin and the guy she is running with. If I can't count on either candidate might as well put a VP in office that young men can "dream" about. Well that and she is a member of the NRA which never hurts.
Personally I'm going to vote for Palin and the guy she is running with. If I can't count on either candidate might as well put a VP in office that young men can "dream" about. Well that and she is a member of the NRA which never hurts.
You're basing your vote on her looks and her membership to the NRA?!?!?!?! That isn't exactly what I'd call an informed, pragmatic decision. No wonder we can never see eye-to-eye on posts.
Or what Apple demands. And that is the bleeding edge, where price is not good for consumer.
Yes but isn't it obvious that the new Touch is bleeding edge? I mean it is possible that Apple is using a different PC board in the 32 GB device but I don't think it is likely.
Quote:
That just isn't rationale to expect a doubling every year, of the 6 months you mentioned earlier with expecting a 64GB Touch back in September. If you expect a 64GB Touch in 2009, then 128GB in 2010, 256GB in 2011, 512GB in 2012, 1TB in 2013, 2TB in 2014, 4TB in 2015, 8TB in 2016, 16TB in 2017, 32TB in 2018.
Well the 64 GB device should have come in September. That would move the 256GB device up to 2010 which is just barely good enough. We really need storage parity with Classic in a flash iPod sometime in 2009. I really don't care how they get there but frankly a bigger Touch is in order. Note that doesn't have to be a hugely bigger Touch either, depending on the technology used to implement the device.
Quote:
I can't find a single 64GB chip on the market, so how is that possible. Apple would have to use two chips which means going to a thicker iPod Touch. Not just for the additional ship, but for the controller and a larger battery would be needed to maintain the same battery performance as you now have two chips sucking power.
Exactly which is why I wonder why Apple dropped the two flash capability in Touch. Frankly if it was me I would have found a way to add another flash position. It really is no big deal as classic came in different thickness's over the years to accommodate more storage. As to batteries they come in all sorts of sizes I don't see this as an issue at all.
Quote:
But you're not alone. Many people expect Apple to somehow turn water into wine. Each revision can't see a doubling because it's 3-4x faster than the chips are available. Then there is production ramp up to consider, costs, and other technical aspects. It just doesn't make sense.
Clearly there are chips to do that today as it appears to be a design decision on Apples part and nothing more that left us without a 64 GB Touch. It is not 3 to 4 times faster either, but rather about 1.5. That issue can be dealt with by using more flash devices not by cutting the number in half. Yeah these are aggressive numbers to look at but they are not totally unworkable.
Quote:
As for form over function, the functionality has increased with the new Touch, but the move to single chip is form over upgradability , because now they can't use 32GB+16GB chips in January for concatenated a 48GB version, which the 64GB version arriving in September of that year, and so on. They could do that every 9 months for so for focused and predictable progression in capacity.
It is not upgradablability as the device aren't, unless you buy a totally new one. But I agree that the current design is troublesome in the sense that it might be a very long time before we see a capacity increase. It looks like Apple only other recourse beside waiting for process improvements is to go to stacked die technology which is expensive. If that is what is required then I say doit. At least offer people the option of buying the capacity they need.. Every body realize that it will be cheaper in 6 months so no big deal. Looking at Touch now it could be a year before we see a capacity increase.
What is obvious though is that the market certainly loves the iPods! With the new ones being all around better deals except for a Flash increase on Touch it will be very interesting to see what holiday sales are like. I suspect lots of smiles.
Well the 64 GB device should have come in September.
Your conviction that Apple should be doubling Flash capacities about every 6 months makes absolutely no sense. You know that Flash isn't updated that often but you sell think that 16GB in Sept then 32GB in February means that 64GB should have arrived in Sept, and I'm sure you would than have expected 128GB in January 2009, despite no 64 or 128GB chips being available. There is just no logic to these timeframes.
The revenue was below estimates but EPS beat estimates.
Apple have deferred earnings from the sales of the 1st iPhones that I suspect they are now booking.
I don't know this for a fact but am suggesting this to be the case.
No, Apple has been recognizing revenue from every iPhone sold, every quarter since it has been sold. After 8 quarters, some phones will STOP contributing revenue, but every phone sold thus far contributes 1/8th of it's total sale price every quarter until then.
You're basing your vote on her looks and her membership to the NRA?!?!?!?! That isn't exactly what I'd call an informed, pragmatic decision. No wonder we can never see eye-to-eye on posts.
The problem is making an informed pragmatic decision is almost hopeless at this point. If you look at Obama he is a extreme radical compared to the majority of the Democratic Party and his election would leave me with the feeling that the next Hitler has taken office. Something I really don't want to see. His policies on health care, welfare and personal responsibility are really appalling.
McCain has his own issues where age is one. Anger also seems to be an issue with McCain. I personally don't think he could assemble a good team to lead the country, because contrary to popular belief the president can't do it alone. Rather it is the ability to assemble the right team and lead them to a common goal that we need in a president.
So yeah if voting for either of the above is out of the question than it is either none of the above or the pretty girl. At least with the pretty girl there is a reasonable potential she would take over in less than 4 years. Yeah she is a little young and inexperienced but you would want someone like Biden in a position of taking over running the country. He is to much of an insider to change anything.
Oh about change, sure a little is needed but we don't need to ruin everything that is good about the country in the process. This is a big worry with Obama.
I think the iPhone number beats the street's expectations, and of course, Apple makes way more money from each iPhone than from each Mac (and iPod), that's why the margin is higher than expected.
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.
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...
It did work but the only question is could it have done better?
Heh, funny you would say that. The answer is no, it's not another application of Reganomics. It's simple economics. Which is also to say, Reganomics is just a basic application of standard economic theory
Not bad for 5 quarters of sales of a relatively expensive handset as a single model device in two capacities, locked to most carriers and lacking features like MMS, video recording and copy/paste.
It looks like calender Q4 will mostly likely overtake Samsung, with Nokia still having double the phone revenue as Apple's iPhone. At what point does it make sense for Apple to introduce a simpler iPhone Nano for those that don't want 3rd-party apps or internet, or does it not make sense at all?
I worry about RiM. they have a great product, but their real money maker—the server-side HW and licensing fees—will probably have to be lowered drastically to stay competitive as companies will most likely look for a way to cut costs, which mean moving to the iPhone and WinCE devices for the "good enough" option for getting Push directly from Exchange via ActiveSync. I hope RiM's access to China goes well.
Absolutely. It's a layman's way to say they should buy marketshare. Thank you for the correction though. I shouldn't participate in the sloppy language of 'joe the plumber' accounting.
Really I'm starting to have problems with how you are missing this. Apple went form a device that used two flash chips to one flash chip but is still shipping a 32 Gb Touch. So that clearly means that Apple could have shipped a device with two 32GB flash chips if it wanted to. That in September!
I don't know how else to explain it. The only thing that would invalidate this is if the 32 GB Touch used a mother board with two flash chip positions. That is possible but I really haven't seen a tear down of a 32 GB Touch. Its not like I'm going to volunteer to go out and buy a 32 GB iPod and tear it apart so I just have to assume right now that the same PC board is being used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Your conviction that Apple should be doubling Flash capacities about every 6 months makes absolutely no sense. You know that Flash isn't updated that often but you sell think that 16GB in Sept then 32GB in February means that 64GB should have arrived in Sept,
Not at all. My position that a 64 GB device is possible is based on the assumption that the 32 GB Touch is using a single chip. Everythign points in that direction. Plus through out the Summer of 2008 more than a couple of companies announced new 32GB flash chips going into production. So the technology was or is coming online. The only reason we don't have a 64 GB Touch right now is that it was redesigned to exclude one chip position.
I don't know but this is pretty clear to me.
I think part of the problem here is that you see a product that hasn't been on the market long getting more updates than the technology growth would allow. But you can't really look at Touch as a technology leader, Flash wise, when it first came out. When it first hit the market it was using cheap commonly available flash chips. So the first update was easy.
Quote:
and I'm sure you would than have expected 128GB in January 2009, despite no 64 or 128GB chips being available. There is just no logic to these timeframes.
Sure there is, simply build a Touch with more flash chips! Right now we are in an era of 32 GB flash apparently based on the large Touch. 64GB is a no brainer and simply follows what was done on the old Touch (add a second chip). I do not expect 64 GB flash chips until early 2010 so that means to hit 128 GB in 2009 requires 4 32GB flash chips. That is a lot harder in the current Touch form factor so Apple produces a fat Touch just like they had a fat Classic. With 64 GB chips in late spring of 2010 Apple can rev each of the Touch devices again. With Flash on a constant downward price slide, Apple should be able to keep the price manageable.
If nothing else look at the prices on the really cheap SSD. Not the high performance ones but rather the slower units, if you don't want performance you can get a significant amount of storage at fairly reasonable prices. Refractored into an iPod it is clear that Apple could do better storage wise. Look here: http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/subs...FQ60Hgod8VxfKw and you will find 128GB drives for $369. If you look here: http://www.pricewatch.com/hard_remov...s/ssd_64gb.htm you will find 64 GB drives for as little as $173. Now you may argue that SSD are nothing like the iPod but I'd have to say they are very similar. Certainly there is a bit extra in the Touch but the Touch can make up some of that in that it doesn't need the level of performance in these devices. The point is the only reason we don't have a 64 GB Touch right now is that Apple for some reason didn't want us to have one.
What that reason is is open to question, but I'm actually hoping they have newer device ready to come on line soon. You can try to convince me otherwise but the evidence is clear.
Not bad for 5 quarters of sales of a relatively expensive handset as a single model device in two capacities, locked to most carriers and lacking features like MMS, video recording and copy/paste.
MMS is simply a tool for people that haven't adapted to the modern world. Beyond that the common usage seems to be with the up skirt crowd. MMS users seem to represent the opposite spectrum of the RIM user. Well most of the time.
Quote:
It looks like calender Q4 will mostly likely overtake Samsung, with Nokia still having double the phone revenue as Apple's iPhone. At what point does it make sense for Apple to introduce a simpler iPhone Nano for those that don't want 3rd-party apps or internet, or does it not make sense at all?
Didn't Jobs more or less say today that they will address the lower end. There is no way they can survive in the cell industry as a one phone company. Hopefully they will get rid of the pathetic locking to carriers.
Quote:
I worry about RiM. they have a great product, but their real money maker?the server-side HW and licensing fees?will probably have to be lowered drastically to stay competitive as companies will most likely look for a way to cut costs, which mean moving to the iPhone and WinCE devices for the "good enough" option for getting Push directly from Exchange via ActiveSync. I hope RiM's access to China goes well.
Nice image
Now you may find this funny but I always worried about the people that carried RIM devices. Really! If RIM goes under a lot of people will have to find other ways to express their masculinity or perceived status in the social pecking order. RIM seemed to cater to the "Look at me I'm important" crowd.
Apple went form a device that used two flash chips to one flash chip but is still shipping a 32 Gb Touch. So that clearly means that Apple could have shipped a device with two 32GB flash chips if it wanted to.
If they went from a device with TWO chips to a device with ONE chip, how exactly do you think that they can add a non-existent 64GB chip in a device that you know only has room for ONE chip. It's technologically impossible until the 64GB chips arrive. This isn't conjecture, this is simple physics.
WOW. I wonder who sold 29,426 shares at 6:55 !!!!!
Could be someone who bought 29,426 shares earlier in the day for $91.70, and figured that a profit of $353,112 (pre-tax) wasn't too shabby for a couple of three hours of work?
If they went from a device with TWO chips to a device with ONE chip, how exactly do you think that they can add a non-existent 64GB chip in a device that you know only has room for ONE chip. It's technologically impossible until the 64GB chips arrive. This isn't conjecture, this is simple physics.
The point was, and again I'm not sure why you are missing this, is that they could have shipped a 64 GB device. All they needed was a design with two chip positions available, that would have been similar to the previous Touch.. It has nothing to do with physics, it was a design trade off.
Comments
I think the flash industry doubles every 18 months or so. Doesn't really matter as users have demands.
Or what Apple demands. And that is the bleeding edge, where price is not good for consumer.
Personally I liked to see Touch double every year no matter what Apple has to do to accomplish that.
That just isn't rationale to expect a doubling every year, of the 6 months you mentioned earlier with expecting a 64GB Touch back in September. If you expect a 64GB Touch in 2009, then 128GB in 2010, 256GB in 2011, 512GB in 2012, 1TB in 2013, 2TB in 2014, 4TB in 2015, 8TB in 2016, 16TB in 2017, 32TB in 2018.
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.
I can't find a single 64GB chip on the market, so how is that possible. Apple would have to use two chips which means going to a thicker iPod Touch. Not just for the additional ship, but for the controller and a larger battery would be needed to maintain the same battery performance as you now have two chips sucking power.
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.
But you're not alone. Many people expect Apple to somehow turn water into wine. Each revision can't see a doubling because it's 3-4x faster than the chips are available. Then there is production ramp up to consider, costs, and other technical aspects. It just doesn't make sense.
As for form over function, the functionality has increased with the new Touch, but the move to single chip is form over upgradability , because now they can't use 32GB+16GB chips in January for concatenated a 48GB version, which the 64GB version arriving in September of that year, and so on. They could do that every 9 months for so for focused and predictable progression in capacity.
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.
I actually don't believe you here because what you need in the future is unknown at this point. But lets say you do buy a shuffle, you don't call that eating into Nano sales, Touch sales or classic sales do you? It just isn't a valid argument as each device has a specific market segment it plays to (pun intended).
As to Touch its very existence highlights that there is a market for such a device outside of the cell industry. The fact is it is a very large market. Touch doesn't eat into iPhone sales because its whole reason for its existence is to pick up sales from people that don't want a iPhone. It provides the Touch experience in a device devoid of iPhone problems.
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.
Sounds like your sister is more interested in copying you than anything else. Which is her right to do, but what you have to understand is that it is pretty clear that not everybody in the market place sees things the way you do. In fact I'm willing to say very few do. As to the shuffle people either hate it or love it depending on how they deal with the interface.
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.
That is simple look at the sales numbers. Best non holiday period ever! One can dig in the barrel of improvised thoughts all day but it is more productive to dig in the barrel of reported facts. iPod sales are shockingly hot and their really isn't much interaction between the "pods" and the "iPhone". Part of that due to the expensive iPhone contract.
Now Apple has as much said that they need to protect the lower end of the iPhone market. So I fully expect to see a lower cost iPhone come out soon. Possibly one aimed at or modelled after the nano. Depending on the contract or lack of, that unit might have significant impact on "pod" sales. As it is now one can't say that based on sales numbers.
Apples toughest problem is maintaining this forward movement through tough times. This brings us back tot he issue of perceived value. If anything the iPhone could drive more sales of things like the Touch based devices instead of "eating" sales.
Dave
I actually don't believe you here because what you need in the future is unknown at this point. But lets say you do buy a shuffle, you don't call that eating into Nano sales, Touch sales or classic sales do you? It just isn't a valid argument as each device has a specific market segment it plays to (pun intended).
They do have their own market segment, but that doesn't mean that segments don't cross each other. Bigmc6000, I and others all seem to be doing the same thing. Dropping our iPod Classics and iPod Nanos for a cheap Shuffle and iPhone. This is not unusual, and quite good that Apple is cannibalizing iPod sales with another product of theirs.
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?
Yeah it did work along with a lot of positive thinking. The problem is we have not elected anybody since that can assemble the economic team the quality of Reagans. Even worst what we have to choose from now (this election) is appalling.
It isn't so much the tax platform that each candidate has but rather the total lack of vision and a healthy respect for others. So when you are sitting in that booth how do you make your decision?
Personally I'm going to vote for Palin and the guy she is running with. If I can't count on either candidate might as well put a VP in office that young men can "dream" about. Well that and she is a member of the NRA which never hurts.
Dave
Personally I'm going to vote for Palin and the guy she is running with. If I can't count on either candidate might as well put a VP in office that young men can "dream" about. Well that and she is a member of the NRA which never hurts.
You're basing your vote on her looks and her membership to the NRA?!?!?!?!
Or what Apple demands. And that is the bleeding edge, where price is not good for consumer.
Yes but isn't it obvious that the new Touch is bleeding edge? I mean it is possible that Apple is using a different PC board in the 32 GB device but I don't think it is likely.
That just isn't rationale to expect a doubling every year, of the 6 months you mentioned earlier with expecting a 64GB Touch back in September. If you expect a 64GB Touch in 2009, then 128GB in 2010, 256GB in 2011, 512GB in 2012, 1TB in 2013, 2TB in 2014, 4TB in 2015, 8TB in 2016, 16TB in 2017, 32TB in 2018.
Well the 64 GB device should have come in September. That would move the 256GB device up to 2010 which is just barely good enough. We really need storage parity with Classic in a flash iPod sometime in 2009. I really don't care how they get there but frankly a bigger Touch is in order. Note that doesn't have to be a hugely bigger Touch either, depending on the technology used to implement the device.
I can't find a single 64GB chip on the market, so how is that possible. Apple would have to use two chips which means going to a thicker iPod Touch. Not just for the additional ship, but for the controller and a larger battery would be needed to maintain the same battery performance as you now have two chips sucking power.
Exactly which is why I wonder why Apple dropped the two flash capability in Touch. Frankly if it was me I would have found a way to add another flash position. It really is no big deal as classic came in different thickness's over the years to accommodate more storage. As to batteries they come in all sorts of sizes I don't see this as an issue at all.
But you're not alone. Many people expect Apple to somehow turn water into wine. Each revision can't see a doubling because it's 3-4x faster than the chips are available. Then there is production ramp up to consider, costs, and other technical aspects. It just doesn't make sense.
Clearly there are chips to do that today as it appears to be a design decision on Apples part and nothing more that left us without a 64 GB Touch. It is not 3 to 4 times faster either, but rather about 1.5. That issue can be dealt with by using more flash devices not by cutting the number in half. Yeah these are aggressive numbers to look at but they are not totally unworkable.
As for form over function, the functionality has increased with the new Touch, but the move to single chip is form over upgradability , because now they can't use 32GB+16GB chips in January for concatenated a 48GB version, which the 64GB version arriving in September of that year, and so on. They could do that every 9 months for so for focused and predictable progression in capacity.
It is not upgradablability as the device aren't, unless you buy a totally new one. But I agree that the current design is troublesome in the sense that it might be a very long time before we see a capacity increase. It looks like Apple only other recourse beside waiting for process improvements is to go to stacked die technology which is expensive. If that is what is required then I say doit. At least offer people the option of buying the capacity they need.. Every body realize that it will be cheaper in 6 months so no big deal. Looking at Touch now it could be a year before we see a capacity increase.
What is obvious though is that the market certainly loves the iPods! With the new ones being all around better deals except for a Flash increase on Touch it will be very interesting to see what holiday sales are like. I suspect lots of smiles.
dave
Well the 64 GB device should have come in September.
Your conviction that Apple should be doubling Flash capacities about every 6 months makes absolutely no sense. You know that Flash isn't updated that often but you sell think that 16GB in Sept then 32GB in February means that 64GB should have arrived in Sept, and I'm sure you would than have expected 128GB in January 2009, despite no 64 or 128GB chips being available. There is just no logic to these timeframes.
The revenue was below estimates but EPS beat estimates.
Apple have deferred earnings from the sales of the 1st iPhones that I suspect they are now booking.
I don't know this for a fact but am suggesting this to be the case.
No, Apple has been recognizing revenue from every iPhone sold, every quarter since it has been sold. After 8 quarters, some phones will STOP contributing revenue, but every phone sold thus far contributes 1/8th of it's total sale price every quarter until then.
up 6.36 points at 5:25 Wall Street time...
Wonder what the idiot conspiracy theorists will say when Apple stock goes up after missing revenue and issuing a low profit forecast.
You're basing your vote on her looks and her membership to the NRA?!?!?!?!
The problem is making an informed pragmatic decision is almost hopeless at this point. If you look at Obama he is a extreme radical compared to the majority of the Democratic Party and his election would leave me with the feeling that the next Hitler has taken office. Something I really don't want to see. His policies on health care, welfare and personal responsibility are really appalling.
McCain has his own issues where age is one. Anger also seems to be an issue with McCain. I personally don't think he could assemble a good team to lead the country, because contrary to popular belief the president can't do it alone. Rather it is the ability to assemble the right team and lead them to a common goal that we need in a president.
So yeah if voting for either of the above is out of the question than it is either none of the above or the pretty girl. At least with the pretty girl there is a reasonable potential she would take over in less than 4 years. Yeah she is a little young and inexperienced but you would want someone like Biden in a position of taking over running the country. He is to much of an insider to change anything.
Oh about change, sure a little is needed but we don't need to ruin everything that is good about the country in the process. This is a big worry with Obama.
No body gives me a warm fuzzy feeling this year.
Dave
I think the iPhone number beats the street's expectations, and of course, Apple makes way more money from each iPhone than from each Mac (and iPod), that's why the margin is higher than expected.
Sure they do...
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.
Lowering margins doesn't "cost" cash
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?
Heh, funny you would say that. The answer is no, it's not another application of Reganomics. It's simple economics. Which is also to say, Reganomics is just a basic application of standard economic theory
It looks like calender Q4 will mostly likely overtake Samsung, with Nokia still having double the phone revenue as Apple's iPhone. At what point does it make sense for Apple to introduce a simpler iPhone Nano for those that don't want 3rd-party apps or internet, or does it not make sense at all?
I worry about RiM. they have a great product, but their real money maker—the server-side HW and licensing fees—will probably have to be lowered drastically to stay competitive as companies will most likely look for a way to cut costs, which mean moving to the iPhone and WinCE devices for the "good enough" option for getting Push directly from Exchange via ActiveSync. I hope RiM's access to China goes well.
Lowering margins doesn't "cost" cash
Absolutely. It's a layman's way to say they should buy marketshare. Thank you for the correction though. I shouldn't participate in the sloppy language of 'joe the plumber' accounting.
I don't know how else to explain it. The only thing that would invalidate this is if the 32 GB Touch used a mother board with two flash chip positions. That is possible but I really haven't seen a tear down of a 32 GB Touch. Its not like I'm going to volunteer to go out and buy a 32 GB iPod and tear it apart so I just have to assume right now that the same PC board is being used.
Your conviction that Apple should be doubling Flash capacities about every 6 months makes absolutely no sense. You know that Flash isn't updated that often but you sell think that 16GB in Sept then 32GB in February means that 64GB should have arrived in Sept,
Not at all. My position that a 64 GB device is possible is based on the assumption that the 32 GB Touch is using a single chip. Everythign points in that direction. Plus through out the Summer of 2008 more than a couple of companies announced new 32GB flash chips going into production. So the technology was or is coming online. The only reason we don't have a 64 GB Touch right now is that it was redesigned to exclude one chip position.
I don't know but this is pretty clear to me.
I think part of the problem here is that you see a product that hasn't been on the market long getting more updates than the technology growth would allow. But you can't really look at Touch as a technology leader, Flash wise, when it first came out. When it first hit the market it was using cheap commonly available flash chips. So the first update was easy.
and I'm sure you would than have expected 128GB in January 2009, despite no 64 or 128GB chips being available. There is just no logic to these timeframes.
Sure there is, simply build a Touch with more flash chips! Right now we are in an era of 32 GB flash apparently based on the large Touch. 64GB is a no brainer and simply follows what was done on the old Touch (add a second chip). I do not expect 64 GB flash chips until early 2010 so that means to hit 128 GB in 2009 requires 4 32GB flash chips. That is a lot harder in the current Touch form factor so Apple produces a fat Touch just like they had a fat Classic. With 64 GB chips in late spring of 2010 Apple can rev each of the Touch devices again. With Flash on a constant downward price slide, Apple should be able to keep the price manageable.
If nothing else look at the prices on the really cheap SSD. Not the high performance ones but rather the slower units, if you don't want performance you can get a significant amount of storage at fairly reasonable prices. Refractored into an iPod it is clear that Apple could do better storage wise. Look here: http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/subs...FQ60Hgod8VxfKw and you will find 128GB drives for $369. If you look here: http://www.pricewatch.com/hard_remov...s/ssd_64gb.htm you will find 64 GB drives for as little as $173. Now you may argue that SSD are nothing like the iPod but I'd have to say they are very similar. Certainly there is a bit extra in the Touch but the Touch can make up some of that in that it doesn't need the level of performance in these devices. The point is the only reason we don't have a 64 GB Touch right now is that Apple for some reason didn't want us to have one.
What that reason is is open to question, but I'm actually hoping they have newer device ready to come on line soon. You can try to convince me otherwise but the evidence is clear.
Dave
Not bad for 5 quarters of sales of a relatively expensive handset as a single model device in two capacities, locked to most carriers and lacking features like MMS, video recording and copy/paste.
MMS is simply a tool for people that haven't adapted to the modern world. Beyond that the common usage seems to be with the up skirt crowd. MMS users seem to represent the opposite spectrum of the RIM user. Well most of the time.
It looks like calender Q4 will mostly likely overtake Samsung, with Nokia still having double the phone revenue as Apple's iPhone. At what point does it make sense for Apple to introduce a simpler iPhone Nano for those that don't want 3rd-party apps or internet, or does it not make sense at all?
Didn't Jobs more or less say today that they will address the lower end. There is no way they can survive in the cell industry as a one phone company. Hopefully they will get rid of the pathetic locking to carriers.
I worry about RiM. they have a great product, but their real money maker?the server-side HW and licensing fees?will probably have to be lowered drastically to stay competitive as companies will most likely look for a way to cut costs, which mean moving to the iPhone and WinCE devices for the "good enough" option for getting Push directly from Exchange via ActiveSync. I hope RiM's access to China goes well.
Nice image
Now you may find this funny but I always worried about the people that carried RIM devices. Really! If RIM goes under a lot of people will have to find other ways to express their masculinity or perceived status in the social pecking order. RIM seemed to cater to the "Look at me I'm important" crowd.
Dave
Apple went form a device that used two flash chips to one flash chip but is still shipping a 32 Gb Touch. So that clearly means that Apple could have shipped a device with two 32GB flash chips if it wanted to.
If they went from a device with TWO chips to a device with ONE chip, how exactly do you think that they can add a non-existent 64GB chip in a device that you know only has room for ONE chip. It's technologically impossible until the 64GB chips arrive. This isn't conjecture, this is simple physics.
103.70 @ 6:55
WOW. I wonder who sold 29,426 shares at 6:55 !!!!!
Could be someone who bought 29,426 shares earlier in the day for $91.70, and figured that a profit of $353,112 (pre-tax) wasn't too shabby for a couple of three hours of work?
If they went from a device with TWO chips to a device with ONE chip, how exactly do you think that they can add a non-existent 64GB chip in a device that you know only has room for ONE chip. It's technologically impossible until the 64GB chips arrive. This isn't conjecture, this is simple physics.
The point was, and again I'm not sure why you are missing this, is that they could have shipped a 64 GB device. All they needed was a design with two chip positions available, that would have been similar to the previous Touch.. It has nothing to do with physics, it was a design trade off.