And about 8x slower, 2x bigger/thicker/uglier, and with that POS OS from the 1990s. Man, I hate Nokia phones. Was more than happy to ditch S60 when the iPhone 3G came out, and now my 3GS whips everything.
If it didn't have exclusivity and couldn't guarantee that consumers would stick with them, I doubt they would be subsidizing as much as they are.
I really don't understand the logic of this statement. If there is more competition for gaining and retaining subscribers, why would the amount of the subsidy decrease? If they can, "guarantee that consumers [will] stick with them," why would they need a larger subsidy?
Apple earned just over $5 billion in the first half of the year, making it the fifth biggest player in terms of revenue, behind Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and LG. Apple lead the world in actually making money however, with just over $2 billion in operating profits.
And this is point that people repeatedly miss.
The purpose of a business is to make as much profit as they can. Market share is irrelevant as these figures (albeit, estimates) attest.
Also, the same reason Apple isn't that fussed about their desktop market share.
Worrying about Apple's margins are a complete red herring. And ascribing moral attributes to same-- imagining that a given gross margin is "obscene" or is an indication of "greed" is nonsensical.
"Corporate greed" is a tautology-- it's a given that corporations will endeavor to increase profits. There are, of course, different ways of going about that, depending on the market and the business model.
You can endeavor to maximize market share and unit sales by relentless price cutting, hoping that razor thin margins on a great many widgets will provide overall profits, ala Dell, or you can go the Apple route and concentrate on the higher end, higher profit segment.
The idea that one is more moral than the other is silly. Does anyone actually think that Nokia, say, gives away tens of millions of "just a phone" handsets out of altruism? Because they want everyone to have access to their great phones, and are willing to make less money to see that happen?
Of course not. Nokia wants as much market share as possible, because that provides inherent competitive advantages. Apple also wants as much market share as possible, within the context of the phones they want to make and their business model.
Talking about "obscene and greedy" pricing obliges one to defend lower prices as "moral and altruistic" (because obscene and greedy have no meaning outside of prevailing custom), which simply makes no sense given the realities of corporate strategy.
Apple's iPhone now accounts for 8% of all mobile phone revenue and a whopping 32% of the industry's handset profits, according to figures published by Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi.
The numbers, published by All Things Digital blogger John Paczkowski, aren't limited just to the smartphone segment market, but look at all mobile phones sold in the first half of 2009, a $65.7 billion industry.
Apple earned just over $5 billion in the first half of the year, making it the fifth biggest player in terms of revenue, behind Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and LG. Apple lead the world in actually making money however, with just over $2 billion in operating profits. The company earned just over $100 million more than second place Nokia, gobbling up a 32% share of the global profits made in handset sales and achieving operating margins of 40%.
Because these numbers reflect the first two quarters of 2009, they only take into consideration less than two weeks of the surge in sales generated by the new iPhone 3GS. Historically, the first half of the year has been the slowest for Apple's mobile sales as buyers begin to anticipate the next refresh.
In terms of operating margins, second place RIM earned closer to 20%, while Nokia, Samsung, and LG made closer to 10% margins. Sony Ericsson and Motorola continued to actually lose money in their handset sales, with the former losing $841 million and the latter loosing $762 million.
Ignoring the losses of Sony Ericsson and Motorola, but still considering their $8 billion in sales, Apple's 8% share of the industry's revenue still accounts for 25% of the world's profits earned from phone sales.
The numbers vindicate Apple's strategy of exclusively selling smartphones, rather than trying to soak up unit market share by marketing huge volumes of many models of low profit 'feature phones.' Nokia, the leader in phone sales worldwide, has watched its market share evaporate under competition from Apple and RIM by doing just the opposite.
Apple's smartphone business is structured similar to the company's approach to selling computers, where it owns a disproportionally large segment of the premium market. As with feature phones, Apple has largely ignored low profit PC segments such as high volume but low priced $400 desktops.
According to Apple's last quarterly report, "iPhone revenue and net sales of related products and services were…$2.8 billion…for the first six months of 2009. vs the the $5,094 billion reported in this article.
Certainly if this is true, and unless there is a clarification of the numbers posted, there is a credibility issue here.
In addition, every company has a different process in how they report their finances. Apple, like most companies does not disclose individual product breakdowns re sales or margins. How this author determined such would be interesting.
Although it doesn't surprise me that Apple is the most profitable of the group, how much Apple allots to service/support and the iTunes Store for the iPhone would be an important factor needed to deduce true profitability.
One thing that would surely drop Apple's operating margin relative to the rest of the industry, would be Steve Jobs being paid a salary. At a $1 a year, it is no wonder, Apple is more profitable.
P.S. In Apple's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, it appears that Apple paid over $1.2 billion in taxes so far this year.
Of course for most of the trolls here, it gives them fodder to regurgitate another problem with Steve, i.e., that he will do anything to screw us out of paying his fair share of taxes.
I wanted to be sure that these facts were true, so I checked the websites for their half yearly reports. Confirmed!!
In fact preception that Apple overcharges the consumer is more, we charge permium prices for premium products, BUT, MS permium prices for a less than stellar products and gets away with it, interesting :-)
LOOK I know many skip my posts. Your loss.
Everyone is wrong. Concerning the word overpriced.
Apple charges the exact correct price every time.
No one ever over or undercharges for long.
They go out of business.
In todays world of split second info shooting back and forth.
and all around trillions of times a second
Any person can compare a price between products
ANYBODY.
Verizon has a war with TIME WARNER FOR the bundle of tv/dsl/phone
VERIZON claims a monthly cost of 79 dollars to 99 dollars a month
Time warner charges me over 160 a month for the triple play of services. VERIZON has a ton of ads placed everywhere.
SO million's of people attempted to save 70 bucks or more a month by getting fios triple bundle
Guess what ??? VERIZON WAS MORE $ than time warner
>>>>>>>> Just like dell or any other box maker is more money than any APPLE computer. Those same mililons saw thru the bullshit dell ads and bought apple . Or they saw their needs werel filled by a lesser box .
So if anyone says apple is over priced then you a very stupid person
So stupid because after all the decades of bullshit selling hype every one should be a savvy shopper by now .
Msft sells all of its SW to apple and the dells of the world .
So why do so they say apple is over priced ??TO keep all you dolts confused about true market REALITY . MSFT IS over priced because many have no choice in a MONOPOLY SW market . MSFT CAN DO WHAT EVER IT WANTS . A 3bn euro fine was sneezed at by msft.
And it an incredible market down turn, the worst in 50 yrs >>how can apple increase there sales by 9 percent while the p/c market declines by 4 percent.? OVERPRICED and sales increased? what mind control apple bot secret formular does apple have to fool milions of us.
if apple is over priced then how can they sell tens millions upon scores of millions of pods phones and computers. Billions of songs.
1.5 bn apps .
APPLE does not have a heart . GET over it . They don;t care . Only shareholders count .
Apple knows that perfect product's sell more>get returned less >
Apple know's that fantastic customer service is a great way to do business .
APPLE knows that by being 100 percent GREEN is good for the health of the world and good for buisness. My 15" MBP 3.02GHz uni HAS A glass sccreen !!
Apple knows having a small product line up is cheaper> clearer and allows them to turn on a dime . Look at have fast apple took over podcasts.
What apple computers are for many people is over powered
many dolts who surf the net and do light home accounting only
go out and buy a $2800 laptop instead of a STRIPPED white MB
Or even a $600 DELL. THAT is what maybe some people mean to say.
When i bought my MB i went frim 13 " stripped to 15" 3.02ghz 7400rpm in a heart beat. COD4
APPLE is cheaper than any other computer maker in the world.
No one comes close .
DELL is over priced > the market place is telling us that even with there extremely low cost razor thin profit machines are still too expensive for them to buy .
One thing that would surely drop Apple's operating margin relative to the rest of the industry, would be Steve Jobs being paid a salary. At a $1 a year, it is no wonder, Apple is more profitable.
Not so. The fair value of all options-based compensation is now expensed (usually in the SG&A), and hence, any decent 'operating margin' calculation should already include an apportioned piece of SJ's total compensation, incl. options.
According to Apple's last quarterly report, "iPhone revenue and net sales of related products and services were?$2.8 billion?for the first six months of 2009. vs the the $5,094 billion reported in this article.
Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.
My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.
I really don't understand the logic of this statement. If there is more competition for gaining and retaining subscribers, why would the amount of the subsidy decrease? If they can, "guarantee that consumers [will] stick with them," why would they need a larger subsidy?
I think he meant that Apple could command such a large subsidy from AT&T only because the iPhone will bring them new subscribers with high ARPUs and loyalty.
The AT&T subsidy for the iPhone is near or at the top of the subsidy amounts any carrier provides for a phone. And AT&T certainly believes it has been worth it...
Not so. The fair value of all options-based compensation is now expensed (usually in the SG&A), and hence, any decent 'operating margin' calculation should already include an apportioned piece of SJ's total compensation, incl. options.
Not necessarily true either. Many analysts exclude options-based compensation, particularly if it is a less accurate predictor of firm fundamentals, such as future cash flows, future earnings,
and contemporaneous returns and, thus, the value of the firm’s equity.
As I recognized previously, the numbers posted where not in accordance of what I could determine from Apple's last two quarterly reports. Since stock-option compensations are rather nebulous in nature, what Jobs makes relative to the iPhone would be even more so.
I would also grant that some of the biggest losing companies, seem to grant (I like that word) more than when they are profitable.
In any event, my position is simply that nobody can conclude that Apple is over charging based on this analysis.
I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
Sounds like we are all being a bit over-charged, here...
Really? Who gives you the same features for less? My un-subsidized iPhone is cheaper then the unsubsidized Treo it replaced - and there is NO comparison as to which had the better hardware.
Sounds like we are all being a bit over-charged, here...
Why do we have to go through this everytime someone gets charged for something? The flip side of a free market economy is you don't have to buy it (the other being whatever the market will bear). The only things we have a right to whine about are things we have to do whether we like it or not = taxes and thieves (sometimes one and the same phenomenon).
Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.
My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.
Note: 1st Quarter = $1.2 Billion; 2nd Quarter = $1.7 Billion; 3rd Quarter = $1.5 billion found in Quarterly Reports pages 27, 30 and 31 respectively.
Once again, it would be necessary to see the protocol used by the analysts.
I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
If this were AppleOutsider, I would agree with you.
I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
Well, first, there's being a dick, and then there's aggravated dickery.
For threads that are linked from stories, it's best to not let the asinine stuff get out of hand, those are the threads that the general public are most likely to see.
Political outsider is its the site's cesspool. I don't remember if a non-member can even see that. I'm pretty sure Lundy would rather do away with that place if he could.
Comments
And about 8x slower, 2x bigger/thicker/uglier, and with that POS OS from the 1990s. Man, I hate Nokia phones. Was more than happy to ditch S60 when the iPhone 3G came out, and now my 3GS whips everything.
N97 = lol.
^This.
If it didn't have exclusivity and couldn't guarantee that consumers would stick with them, I doubt they would be subsidizing as much as they are.
I really don't understand the logic of this statement. If there is more competition for gaining and retaining subscribers, why would the amount of the subsidy decrease? If they can, "guarantee that consumers [will] stick with them," why would they need a larger subsidy?
Apple earned just over $5 billion in the first half of the year, making it the fifth biggest player in terms of revenue, behind Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and LG. Apple lead the world in actually making money however, with just over $2 billion in operating profits.
And this is point that people repeatedly miss.
The purpose of a business is to make as much profit as they can. Market share is irrelevant as these figures (albeit, estimates) attest.
Also, the same reason Apple isn't that fussed about their desktop market share.
"Corporate greed" is a tautology-- it's a given that corporations will endeavor to increase profits. There are, of course, different ways of going about that, depending on the market and the business model.
You can endeavor to maximize market share and unit sales by relentless price cutting, hoping that razor thin margins on a great many widgets will provide overall profits, ala Dell, or you can go the Apple route and concentrate on the higher end, higher profit segment.
The idea that one is more moral than the other is silly. Does anyone actually think that Nokia, say, gives away tens of millions of "just a phone" handsets out of altruism? Because they want everyone to have access to their great phones, and are willing to make less money to see that happen?
Of course not. Nokia wants as much market share as possible, because that provides inherent competitive advantages. Apple also wants as much market share as possible, within the context of the phones they want to make and their business model.
Talking about "obscene and greedy" pricing obliges one to defend lower prices as "moral and altruistic" (because obscene and greedy have no meaning outside of prevailing custom), which simply makes no sense given the realities of corporate strategy.
From what you wrote, all softwares are overpriced because CD cost $1 but some softwares are selling for hundreds.
You really need to learn how to read, that has nothing to do with what I wrote, the key word was "margin"
I think too999's point is that widely used software has enormous margins since the cost to make and deliver an additional copy is negligible.
Apple's iPhone now accounts for 8% of all mobile phone revenue and a whopping 32% of the industry's handset profits, according to figures published by Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi.
The numbers, published by All Things Digital blogger John Paczkowski, aren't limited just to the smartphone segment market, but look at all mobile phones sold in the first half of 2009, a $65.7 billion industry.
Apple earned just over $5 billion in the first half of the year, making it the fifth biggest player in terms of revenue, behind Nokia, Samsung, RIM, and LG. Apple lead the world in actually making money however, with just over $2 billion in operating profits. The company earned just over $100 million more than second place Nokia, gobbling up a 32% share of the global profits made in handset sales and achieving operating margins of 40%.
Because these numbers reflect the first two quarters of 2009, they only take into consideration less than two weeks of the surge in sales generated by the new iPhone 3GS. Historically, the first half of the year has been the slowest for Apple's mobile sales as buyers begin to anticipate the next refresh.
In terms of operating margins, second place RIM earned closer to 20%, while Nokia, Samsung, and LG made closer to 10% margins. Sony Ericsson and Motorola continued to actually lose money in their handset sales, with the former losing $841 million and the latter loosing $762 million.
Ignoring the losses of Sony Ericsson and Motorola, but still considering their $8 billion in sales, Apple's 8% share of the industry's revenue still accounts for 25% of the world's profits earned from phone sales.
The numbers vindicate Apple's strategy of exclusively selling smartphones, rather than trying to soak up unit market share by marketing huge volumes of many models of low profit 'feature phones.' Nokia, the leader in phone sales worldwide, has watched its market share evaporate under competition from Apple and RIM by doing just the opposite.
Apple's smartphone business is structured similar to the company's approach to selling computers, where it owns a disproportionally large segment of the premium market. As with feature phones, Apple has largely ignored low profit PC segments such as high volume but low priced $400 desktops.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
According to Apple's last quarterly report, "iPhone revenue and net sales of related products and services were…$2.8 billion…for the first six months of 2009. vs the the $5,094 billion reported in this article.
Certainly if this is true, and unless there is a clarification of the numbers posted, there is a credibility issue here.
In addition, every company has a different process in how they report their finances. Apple, like most companies does not disclose individual product breakdowns re sales or margins. How this author determined such would be interesting.
Although it doesn't surprise me that Apple is the most profitable of the group, how much Apple allots to service/support and the iTunes Store for the iPhone would be an important factor needed to deduce true profitability.
One thing that would surely drop Apple's operating margin relative to the rest of the industry, would be Steve Jobs being paid a salary. At a $1 a year, it is no wonder, Apple is more profitable.
P.S. In Apple's Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, it appears that Apple paid over $1.2 billion in taxes so far this year.
Of course for most of the trolls here, it gives them fodder to regurgitate another problem with Steve, i.e., that he will do anything to screw us out of paying his fair share of taxes.
I wanted to be sure that these facts were true, so I checked the websites for their half yearly reports. Confirmed!!
In fact preception that Apple overcharges the consumer is more, we charge permium prices for premium products, BUT, MS permium prices for a less than stellar products and gets away with it, interesting :-)
LOOK I know many skip my posts. Your loss.
Everyone is wrong. Concerning the word overpriced.
Apple charges the exact correct price every time.
No one ever over or undercharges for long.
They go out of business.
In todays world of split second info shooting back and forth.
and all around trillions of times a second
Any person can compare a price between products
ANYBODY.
Verizon has a war with TIME WARNER FOR the bundle of tv/dsl/phone
VERIZON claims a monthly cost of 79 dollars to 99 dollars a month
Time warner charges me over 160 a month for the triple play of services. VERIZON has a ton of ads placed everywhere.
SO million's of people attempted to save 70 bucks or more a month by getting fios triple bundle
Guess what ??? VERIZON WAS MORE $ than time warner
>>>>>>>> Just like dell or any other box maker is more money than any APPLE computer. Those same mililons saw thru the bullshit dell ads and bought apple . Or they saw their needs werel filled by a lesser box .
So if anyone says apple is over priced then you a very stupid person
So stupid because after all the decades of bullshit selling hype every one should be a savvy shopper by now .
Msft sells all of its SW to apple and the dells of the world .
So why do so they say apple is over priced ??TO keep all you dolts confused about true market REALITY . MSFT IS over priced because many have no choice in a MONOPOLY SW market . MSFT CAN DO WHAT EVER IT WANTS . A 3bn euro fine was sneezed at by msft.
And it an incredible market down turn, the worst in 50 yrs >>how can apple increase there sales by 9 percent while the p/c market declines by 4 percent.? OVERPRICED and sales increased? what mind control apple bot secret formular does apple have to fool milions of us.
if apple is over priced then how can they sell tens millions upon scores of millions of pods phones and computers. Billions of songs.
1.5 bn apps .
APPLE does not have a heart . GET over it . They don;t care . Only shareholders count .
Apple knows that perfect product's sell more>get returned less >
Apple know's that fantastic customer service is a great way to do business .
APPLE knows that by being 100 percent GREEN is good for the health of the world and good for buisness. My 15" MBP 3.02GHz uni HAS A glass sccreen !!
Apple knows having a small product line up is cheaper> clearer and allows them to turn on a dime . Look at have fast apple took over podcasts.
What apple computers are for many people is over powered
many dolts who surf the net and do light home accounting only
go out and buy a $2800 laptop instead of a STRIPPED white MB
Or even a $600 DELL. THAT is what maybe some people mean to say.
When i bought my MB i went frim 13 " stripped to 15" 3.02ghz 7400rpm in a heart beat. COD4
APPLE is cheaper than any other computer maker in the world.
No one comes close .
DELL is over priced > the market place is telling us that even with there extremely low cost razor thin profit machines are still too expensive for them to buy .
One thing that would surely drop Apple's operating margin relative to the rest of the industry, would be Steve Jobs being paid a salary. At a $1 a year, it is no wonder, Apple is more profitable.
Not so. The fair value of all options-based compensation is now expensed (usually in the SG&A), and hence, any decent 'operating margin' calculation should already include an apportioned piece of SJ's total compensation, incl. options.
According to Apple's last quarterly report, "iPhone revenue and net sales of related products and services were?$2.8 billion?for the first six months of 2009. vs the the $5,094 billion reported in this article.
Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.
My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.
I really don't understand the logic of this statement. If there is more competition for gaining and retaining subscribers, why would the amount of the subsidy decrease? If they can, "guarantee that consumers [will] stick with them," why would they need a larger subsidy?
I think he meant that Apple could command such a large subsidy from AT&T only because the iPhone will bring them new subscribers with high ARPUs and loyalty.
The AT&T subsidy for the iPhone is near or at the top of the subsidy amounts any carrier provides for a phone. And AT&T certainly believes it has been worth it...
Not so. The fair value of all options-based compensation is now expensed (usually in the SG&A), and hence, any decent 'operating margin' calculation should already include an apportioned piece of SJ's total compensation, incl. options.
Not necessarily true either. Many analysts exclude options-based compensation, particularly if it is a less accurate predictor of firm fundamentals, such as future cash flows, future earnings,
and contemporaneous returns and, thus, the value of the firm’s equity.
As I recognized previously, the numbers posted where not in accordance of what I could determine from Apple's last two quarterly reports. Since stock-option compensations are rather nebulous in nature, what Jobs makes relative to the iPhone would be even more so.
I would also grant that some of the biggest losing companies, seem to grant (I like that word) more than when they are profitable.
In any event, my position is simply that nobody can conclude that Apple is over charging based on this analysis.
Ok, continue with this, and you're gone.
I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
Sounds like we are all being a bit over-charged, here...
Really? Who gives you the same features for less? My un-subsidized iPhone is cheaper then the unsubsidized Treo it replaced - and there is NO comparison as to which had the better hardware.
Sounds like we are all being a bit over-charged, here...
Why do we have to go through this everytime someone gets charged for something? The flip side of a free market economy is you don't have to buy it (the other being whatever the market will bear). The only things we have a right to whine about are things we have to do whether we like it or not = taxes and thieves (sometimes one and the same phenomenon).
Could you pls cite an exact source (page number, etc) - I am unable to see that in the June 27, 2009 10Q.
My guess is that, in claiming $5B+ in iPhone revenue, the analyst is adjusting for the revenue recognition issue, i.e., the fact that iPhone revenues are being recognized over a 24-month period.
Note: 1st Quarter = $1.2 Billion; 2nd Quarter = $1.7 Billion; 3rd Quarter = $1.5 billion found in Quarterly Reports pages 27, 30 and 31 respectively.
Once again, it would be necessary to see the protocol used by the analysts.
I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
If this were AppleOutsider, I would agree with you.
As for iPhone1982, I see he is gone.
Thank you, Melgross.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I agree that the poster was being a dick, but, if that's the standard for being banned, you might want to give the PoliticalOutsider forum a quick scan, too.
Well, first, there's being a dick, and then there's aggravated dickery.
For threads that are linked from stories, it's best to not let the asinine stuff get out of hand, those are the threads that the general public are most likely to see.
Political outsider is its the site's cesspool. I don't remember if a non-member can even see that. I'm pretty sure Lundy would rather do away with that place if he could.