The 75% growth is inaccurate, because we have never been presented this number before, so you are comparing the total iphone revenues, to iphone revenues that were accounted for on a subscription basis a year ago. The number undoubtedly would still be very high, but not this astronomical. Also that big "non-gaap" home run number, counts all the iphone revenue from this quarters, as well as, the part of subscription for all previously sold iphones in prior quarters. GAAP would never allow this kind of accounting thats why they had to report it as non-GAAP
The difference between GAAP and non-GAAP earnings a year ago were small (Apple earnings in the 2007 4th quarter were understated by 87.5% of the 1.2 million iPhones sold Q4, and overstated by 12.5% of the 270K iPhones sold in Q3). We don't know what the profit margins were on the 1st generation iPhones, but assuming that it is the same as 2nd gen ($208 profit per phone), that means that non-GAAP earnings for 2007 Q4 would have been $211 million higher than GAAP earnings.
GAAP 2007 Q4 earnings were 904 million, so non-GAAP would have been 1115 million. So year over year real growth of non-GAAP earnings is about 215% (net income rose from 1115 to 2400).
Revenue is a similar deal: non-GAAP revenue in Q4 2007 would have been $600 million higher (6617 million), and non-GAAP revenue in Q4 2008 was 11,700 million - a 56.5% growth rate.
Saw the title and knew interesting who had written this article. *yawn*
Who cares about Microsoft? They don't compete with Apple on any serious level. Why this obsession with them?
It's also worth pointing out that having massive stock piles of cash is generally considered a bad thing. It incurs massive opportunity costs and gives poor value of money to shareholders. That's why Microsoft got rid of their great swimming pool of cash.
It's also worth pointing out that having massive stock piles of cash is generally considered a bad thing.
When you are going into a recession, with credit markets totally screwed up, piles of cash is a very good thing. Microsoft only dished out their cash in a dividend in an attempt to appease angry shareholders who has seen zero capital gains in 5 years - Apple, OTOH, has nothing to apologize for, so no dividend needed.
When you are going into a recession, with credit markets totally screwed up, piles of cash is a very good thing. Microsoft only dished out their cash in a dividend in an attempt to appease angry shareholders who has seen zero capital gains in 5 years - Apple, OTOH, has nothing to apologize for, so no dividend needed.
Dividends are not something to apologize for. They're the reason companies exist.
And if you'd like to talk about capital gains, people who have invested in Apple last December, or even as late as last August have lost half their money. Yes you can blame the economy, but if the company had paid out dividends regularly, the investors would not have lost so much. There's a reason why the Warren Buffets of the world prefer companies that pay out dividends.
Dividends are not something to apologize for. They're the reason companies exist.
The apology was not for the dividend - THE DIVIDEND WAS THE APOLOGY. You need to read my post better - the dividend was like roses when you cheat on your spouse. Nobody would ever need to apologize for a dividend, I don't know how you could even think I meant that.
The dividend was apologizing for this: Red = Microsoft, Blue = Apple
It's also worth pointing out that having massive stock piles of cash is generally considered a bad thing. It incurs massive opportunity costs and gives poor value of money to shareholders. That's why Microsoft got rid of their great swimming pool of cash.
There is a misconception on your part. That money IS invested and they do get a pretty good return on it.
I think it's worth pointing out that the people that consider having liquidity and no debt a bad thing are among the very people that f-ed up Wall Street. The problem is that, a little debt has a tendency to balloon into a lot of debt if things don't go right. Best to have a good cushion, not only that, it eliminates the risk that you have of banks trying to control your operations.
I truely am suprised at the hatred for Microsoft, they have done alot of good for the computer industry, and I honestly don't believe we would be were we are today if it were not for Microsoft. Not everyone can afford a Mac, and their prices and everyone's prices would be higher had it not been for the idea of licensing an OS to any copycat hardware.
I agree, people are always quick to say Microsoft are rubbish yet they have done a lot of good. Office is used by everyone not because there locked into using it, but because it was better than the rest early on and continues to.
Even now they are fixing the flaws with there main problems. Yes Vista doesn't run all your old programs and it wont run on all hardware but eventually your hardware will need to be replaced anyway (even with a Mac) and the restrictions on software has made more secure than a Mac! As for speed which someone else mentioned, Vista boots up faster on my iMac that OS X does. Apple goes on about how great it is to make the hardware and software but if thats the case how does an OS made be another company that has to support a lot lot lot more hardware configurations start faster than there's!!!
If MS can't find a good use for the money (such as to buy somebody) they really need to give it back to the stock holders. That's what dividends are about. That's what companies are about. Unless they plan to buy someone big like Adobe, that's what Apple should do as well.
When you are a growth company with a long and distinguished track record of buying up smaller companies, paying a huge one time dividend is the absolute opposite of good sense. Dividends which are designed to "give back" to the shareholders should be reasonable in size and regular in interval. Anything else is a bad sign.
has MS not shot the largest portion of their wad on the ill timed dividend they could have bought Yahoo outright first time around. But they didn't. MS had to bluff with mostly stock swaps and the Yahoo shareholders didn't buy it hook line and sinker. The merger may eventually happen, but the 800 pound gorilla is now more like a 250 pound gorilla. Sure you can't ignore it, but it doesn't dominate the financial conversation to the tune of geting it's way no matter what.
Because they have stifled innovation, and slowed the progression of mankind since forever. I have no time for imitators whatsoever, profitable or not.
Finally after a long fascinating and sometimes 'seat of ya pants' journey, innovation and raw talent is winning out and taking its rightful place.
As I have said before on these forums, I have had much work of my own copied and imitated so I have a personal sympathy for Apple's position. Copying is easy, realizing dreams and staying one step ahead is hard work and often not so rewarding in profit. So to see profits exceed that of MSFT is quite a pleasure for me, and a victory for innovation itself.
Also, many people thought I was a lunatic when I tried explaining the potential of OSX, and the benefits of having a proprietary OS tied to hardware as a business model of the future, that was ten years ago. Apparently it was only a matter of time until Apple withered and died, and total domination by MSFT was inevitable, and I was the lone dumbass for thinking the contrary
So yeah thats my reason.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Dividends are not something to apologize for. They're the reason companies exist.
And if you'd like to talk about capital gains, people who have invested in Apple last December, or even as late as last August have lost half their money. Yes you can blame the economy, but if the company had paid out dividends regularly, the investors would not have lost so much. There's a reason why the Warren Buffets of the world prefer companies that pay out dividends.
No, dividends are not the reasons companies exist. Companies exist to make profits.
Regular dividend returns are a way value and income companies maintain stock favorability when they are the owners of a market where potential growth is restricted due to near market saturation.
One-time dividends by growth companies in non-saturated, still rapidly growing markets do not fit he mold of how dividends are used as a long term stock value tool.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Apple did not "copy" the Xerox GUI. They got permission to use it as the wunderkinds in charge Xerox-PARC couldn't see how it would be applicable to their document reproduction business.
When you get permission it is not "copy", but "evolved from", or "originated with". The original idea folks still got all the credit for coming up with it and thanks was given for allowing the use.
I may seem like a cheezy difference in language, but it is a significant difference in Karma.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
While basically accurate, this reading of history ignores Steve Jobs' genius. At the time, Xerox as well as other research labs and clever inventors, had hundreds of bright ideas. No one at Xerox was visionary enough to realize that the GUI would be the principal way people use computers in the future. It was Jobs' genius that enabled him to say 'no' to 99 other bright ideas, and focus on and develop this bright idea. No one else at Xerox or Microsoft had or has this genius. The man is uniquely gifted and it's all too easy to underestimate him.
Steve Jobs retains the same genius today; what has changed is that he's now a more experienced and shrewd businessman. Microsoft's humiliation has just begun.
not necessarily. even if everyone who could afford a mac wanted one, there will always be people that will need a cheaper (windows) PC.
The sad thing in a way, although not to much, is that the mac is a cheapened brand now and equally, the MBP is a rip off. Same body, everything as a MB with bigger screen and firewire (yeah, duh, okay, express too) so marginally in the same "cost" category yet Apple (SHOCKER) charges much more and people ARE NOT buying them.
I've spoken to several Apple friends, and many are the GENIUSES (hate that term), anyway, they said they are arriving DOA and many hate that the MB has no fire wire.
Apple has cheapened their image, even at the higher price point.
While basically accurate, this reading of history ignores Steve Jobs' genius. At the time, Xerox as well as other research labs and clever inventors, had hundreds of bright ideas. No one at Xerox was visionary enough to realize that the GUI would be the principal way people use computers in the future. It was Jobs' genius that enabled him to say 'no' to 99 other bright ideas, and focus on and develop this bright idea. No one else at Xerox or Microsoft had or has this genius. The man is uniquely gifted and it's all too easy to underestimate him.
Steve Jobs retains the same genius today; what has changed is that he's now a more experienced and shrewd businessman. Microsoft's humiliation has just begun.
The sad thing in a way, although not to much, is that the mac is a cheapened brand now and equally, the MBP is a rip off. Same body, everything as a MB with bigger screen and firewire (yeah, duh, okay, express too) so marginally in the same "cost" category yet Apple (SHOCKER) charges much more and people ARE NOT buying them.
I've spoken to several Apple friends, and many are the GENIUSES (hate that term), anyway, they said they are arriving DOA and many hate that the MB has no fire wire.
Apple has cheapened their image, even at the higher price point.
The first part makes no sense, the second part is anecdotal if true and hardly relevant, and the third part isn't true.
As a lame attempt [the 32 billion dividend] to bolster a stagnating to declining share price. And once that money goes once, it's not in the coffers to entice the next group after the share price resumes it's natural progression.
I saw it as a way for the majority shareholders to get the cash out of the company for themselves, at the expense of smaller shareholders.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Please PEOPLE.
Why are most ANTI MS users morons!!!
Dock = google YZ Dock, original NOT APPLE.
SEARCH=MS invented it, it came out first in OSX, then ViSTA
RESTORE=Then Time Machine, when it works of course.
I know people give Vista a bad rap but OS9 anyone? R U KIDDING?
What a joke.
The 50 lb imac? Seriously? Genius?
Now a MB with no firewire (= no backup, no cam corder = a way to justify getting pro's to use macbook pro's and charging $10 grand for a piece of memory? Genius? Really?
Long live EFI-X
A mac is just a ABIT/ASUS motherboard with Apple OS and shell.
Apple doesn't make memory, hard drives, motherboards, wafer fabs.
My goodness, why do pure Apple people refuse to act like idiots even after the Intel transition which saved them.
Powerbook = STUDIO ON THE ROAD!
Yeah right, it was pounced over and over by the PC.
Comments
Originally Posted by KenC
I think Apple has lost far more in analyst confusion than it has gained in goodwill by not charging its iPhone owners $10 for one new feature set.
That is something to consider. What would the stock valuation be if Apple wasn't using GAAP but charging for updates like it does with the iPod Touch?
But surely the difference is that customers are expected to consume, and analysts are expected to analyze. It's the latter bit that's deficient.
Which MS products or services use GAAP accounting?
All.
What would the stock valuation be if Apple wasn't using GAAP but charging for updates like it does with the iPod Touch?
Apple's market cap would be the same as it is now. The professionals on Wall Street are not stupid. They understand exactly what these numbers mean.
The 75% growth is inaccurate, because we have never been presented this number before, so you are comparing the total iphone revenues, to iphone revenues that were accounted for on a subscription basis a year ago. The number undoubtedly would still be very high, but not this astronomical. Also that big "non-gaap" home run number, counts all the iphone revenue from this quarters, as well as, the part of subscription for all previously sold iphones in prior quarters. GAAP would never allow this kind of accounting thats why they had to report it as non-GAAP
The difference between GAAP and non-GAAP earnings a year ago were small (Apple earnings in the 2007 4th quarter were understated by 87.5% of the 1.2 million iPhones sold Q4, and overstated by 12.5% of the 270K iPhones sold in Q3). We don't know what the profit margins were on the 1st generation iPhones, but assuming that it is the same as 2nd gen ($208 profit per phone), that means that non-GAAP earnings for 2007 Q4 would have been $211 million higher than GAAP earnings.
GAAP 2007 Q4 earnings were 904 million, so non-GAAP would have been 1115 million. So year over year real growth of non-GAAP earnings is about 215% (net income rose from 1115 to 2400).
Revenue is a similar deal: non-GAAP revenue in Q4 2007 would have been $600 million higher (6617 million), and non-GAAP revenue in Q4 2008 was 11,700 million - a 56.5% growth rate.
Who cares about Microsoft? They don't compete with Apple on any serious level. Why this obsession with them?
It's also worth pointing out that having massive stock piles of cash is generally considered a bad thing. It incurs massive opportunity costs and gives poor value of money to shareholders. That's why Microsoft got rid of their great swimming pool of cash.
It's also worth pointing out that having massive stock piles of cash is generally considered a bad thing.
When you are going into a recession, with credit markets totally screwed up, piles of cash is a very good thing. Microsoft only dished out their cash in a dividend in an attempt to appease angry shareholders who has seen zero capital gains in 5 years - Apple, OTOH, has nothing to apologize for, so no dividend needed.
When you are going into a recession, with credit markets totally screwed up, piles of cash is a very good thing. Microsoft only dished out their cash in a dividend in an attempt to appease angry shareholders who has seen zero capital gains in 5 years - Apple, OTOH, has nothing to apologize for, so no dividend needed.
Dividends are not something to apologize for. They're the reason companies exist.
And if you'd like to talk about capital gains, people who have invested in Apple last December, or even as late as last August have lost half their money. Yes you can blame the economy, but if the company had paid out dividends regularly, the investors would not have lost so much. There's a reason why the Warren Buffets of the world prefer companies that pay out dividends.
Dividends are not something to apologize for. They're the reason companies exist.
The apology was not for the dividend - THE DIVIDEND WAS THE APOLOGY. You need to read my post better - the dividend was like roses when you cheat on your spouse. Nobody would ever need to apologize for a dividend, I don't know how you could even think I meant that.
The dividend was apologizing for this: Red = Microsoft, Blue = Apple
http://finance.google.com/finance?ch...AQ:AAPL&ntsp=0
It's also worth pointing out that having massive stock piles of cash is generally considered a bad thing. It incurs massive opportunity costs and gives poor value of money to shareholders. That's why Microsoft got rid of their great swimming pool of cash.
There is a misconception on your part. That money IS invested and they do get a pretty good return on it.
I think it's worth pointing out that the people that consider having liquidity and no debt a bad thing are among the very people that f-ed up Wall Street. The problem is that, a little debt has a tendency to balloon into a lot of debt if things don't go right. Best to have a good cushion, not only that, it eliminates the risk that you have of banks trying to control your operations.
I truely am suprised at the hatred for Microsoft, they have done alot of good for the computer industry, and I honestly don't believe we would be were we are today if it were not for Microsoft. Not everyone can afford a Mac, and their prices and everyone's prices would be higher had it not been for the idea of licensing an OS to any copycat hardware.
I agree, people are always quick to say Microsoft are rubbish yet they have done a lot of good. Office is used by everyone not because there locked into using it, but because it was better than the rest early on and continues to.
Even now they are fixing the flaws with there main problems. Yes Vista doesn't run all your old programs and it wont run on all hardware but eventually your hardware will need to be replaced anyway (even with a Mac) and the restrictions on software has made more secure than a Mac! As for speed which someone else mentioned, Vista boots up faster on my iMac that OS X does. Apple goes on about how great it is to make the hardware and software but if thats the case how does an OS made be another company that has to support a lot lot lot more hardware configurations start faster than there's!!!
Bull. In what sense is this correct?
If MS can't find a good use for the money (such as to buy somebody) they really need to give it back to the stock holders. That's what dividends are about. That's what companies are about. Unless they plan to buy someone big like Adobe, that's what Apple should do as well.
When you are a growth company with a long and distinguished track record of buying up smaller companies, paying a huge one time dividend is the absolute opposite of good sense. Dividends which are designed to "give back" to the shareholders should be reasonable in size and regular in interval. Anything else is a bad sign.
has MS not shot the largest portion of their wad on the ill timed dividend they could have bought Yahoo outright first time around. But they didn't. MS had to bluff with mostly stock swaps and the Yahoo shareholders didn't buy it hook line and sinker. The merger may eventually happen, but the 800 pound gorilla is now more like a 250 pound gorilla. Sure you can't ignore it, but it doesn't dominate the financial conversation to the tune of geting it's way no matter what.
Because they have stifled innovation, and slowed the progression of mankind since forever. I have no time for imitators whatsoever, profitable or not.
Finally after a long fascinating and sometimes 'seat of ya pants' journey, innovation and raw talent is winning out and taking its rightful place.
As I have said before on these forums, I have had much work of my own copied and imitated so I have a personal sympathy for Apple's position. Copying is easy, realizing dreams and staying one step ahead is hard work and often not so rewarding in profit. So to see profits exceed that of MSFT is quite a pleasure for me, and a victory for innovation itself.
Also, many people thought I was a lunatic when I tried explaining the potential of OSX, and the benefits of having a proprietary OS tied to hardware as a business model of the future, that was ten years ago. Apparently it was only a matter of time until Apple withered and died, and total domination by MSFT was inevitable, and I was the lone dumbass for thinking the contrary
So yeah thats my reason.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Dividends are not something to apologize for. They're the reason companies exist.
And if you'd like to talk about capital gains, people who have invested in Apple last December, or even as late as last August have lost half their money. Yes you can blame the economy, but if the company had paid out dividends regularly, the investors would not have lost so much. There's a reason why the Warren Buffets of the world prefer companies that pay out dividends.
No, dividends are not the reasons companies exist. Companies exist to make profits.
Regular dividend returns are a way value and income companies maintain stock favorability when they are the owners of a market where potential growth is restricted due to near market saturation.
One-time dividends by growth companies in non-saturated, still rapidly growing markets do not fit he mold of how dividends are used as a long term stock value tool.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Copied, not stole. One was invited to and were given permission to copy, the other wasn't.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Apple did not "copy" the Xerox GUI. They got permission to use it as the wunderkinds in charge Xerox-PARC couldn't see how it would be applicable to their document reproduction business.
When you get permission it is not "copy", but "evolved from", or "originated with". The original idea folks still got all the credit for coming up with it and thanks was given for allowing the use.
I may seem like a cheezy difference in language, but it is a significant difference in Karma.
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
While basically accurate, this reading of history ignores Steve Jobs' genius. At the time, Xerox as well as other research labs and clever inventors, had hundreds of bright ideas. No one at Xerox was visionary enough to realize that the GUI would be the principal way people use computers in the future. It was Jobs' genius that enabled him to say 'no' to 99 other bright ideas, and focus on and develop this bright idea. No one else at Xerox or Microsoft had or has this genius. The man is uniquely gifted and it's all too easy to underestimate him.
Steve Jobs retains the same genius today; what has changed is that he's now a more experienced and shrewd businessman. Microsoft's humiliation has just begun.
not necessarily. even if everyone who could afford a mac wanted one, there will always be people that will need a cheaper (windows) PC.
The sad thing in a way, although not to much, is that the mac is a cheapened brand now and equally, the MBP is a rip off. Same body, everything as a MB with bigger screen and firewire (yeah, duh, okay, express too) so marginally in the same "cost" category yet Apple (SHOCKER) charges much more and people ARE NOT buying them.
I've spoken to several Apple friends, and many are the GENIUSES (hate that term), anyway, they said they are arriving DOA and many hate that the MB has no fire wire.
Apple has cheapened their image, even at the higher price point.
While basically accurate, this reading of history ignores Steve Jobs' genius. At the time, Xerox as well as other research labs and clever inventors, had hundreds of bright ideas. No one at Xerox was visionary enough to realize that the GUI would be the principal way people use computers in the future. It was Jobs' genius that enabled him to say 'no' to 99 other bright ideas, and focus on and develop this bright idea. No one else at Xerox or Microsoft had or has this genius. The man is uniquely gifted and it's all too easy to underestimate him.
Steve Jobs retains the same genius today; what has changed is that he's now a more experienced and shrewd businessman. Microsoft's humiliation has just begun.
Your confusing Steve with Jonathan Ives.
Sorry.
The sad thing in a way, although not to much, is that the mac is a cheapened brand now and equally, the MBP is a rip off. Same body, everything as a MB with bigger screen and firewire (yeah, duh, okay, express too) so marginally in the same "cost" category yet Apple (SHOCKER) charges much more and people ARE NOT buying them.
I've spoken to several Apple friends, and many are the GENIUSES (hate that term), anyway, they said they are arriving DOA and many hate that the MB has no fire wire.
Apple has cheapened their image, even at the higher price point.
The first part makes no sense, the second part is anecdotal if true and hardly relevant, and the third part isn't true.
Your confusing Steve with Jonathan Ives.
Sorry.
You're confusing Ives with Jobs.
As a lame attempt [the 32 billion dividend] to bolster a stagnating to declining share price. And once that money goes once, it's not in the coffers to entice the next group after the share price resumes it's natural progression.
I saw it as a way for the majority shareholders to get the cash out of the company for themselves, at the expense of smaller shareholders.
I wonder who the majority shareholders are ...
So, you do realize that Apple copied their UI from Xerox long before Microsoft copied it from Apple, right?
Please PEOPLE.
Why are most ANTI MS users morons!!!
Dock = google YZ Dock, original NOT APPLE.
SEARCH=MS invented it, it came out first in OSX, then ViSTA
RESTORE=Then Time Machine, when it works of course.
I know people give Vista a bad rap but OS9 anyone? R U KIDDING?
What a joke.
The 50 lb imac? Seriously? Genius?
Now a MB with no firewire (= no backup, no cam corder = a way to justify getting pro's to use macbook pro's and charging $10 grand for a piece of memory? Genius? Really?
Long live EFI-X
A mac is just a ABIT/ASUS motherboard with Apple OS and shell.
Apple doesn't make memory, hard drives, motherboards, wafer fabs.
My goodness, why do pure Apple people refuse to act like idiots even after the Intel transition which saved them.
Powerbook = STUDIO ON THE ROAD!
Yeah right, it was pounced over and over by the PC.