If they were too expensive, there would be little or no profit, as the market would reject them. Since they do make such profits, they seem to have priced the products well.
Their responsibility in this area (profitability) is to their stockholders, to maximize profits, not to you or me
Except his next argument is "That is only because the Apple fanboys are willing to give both their arms to buy anything with a shiny fruit logo on it"......and we all know you can´t argue with that.....
This only shows how Apple makes their products too expensive.
Should we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is sarcasm? Because if you are serious that's one of the most stupid, idiotic posts ever conceived by an Apple hater.
And I'd rather give my money to Apple then to any PC maker. but I still want a Mac between the Mini and the Mac Pro. I want Apple to make some money selling me a headless mid range Mac.
People seems to forget that Apple makes loads of money from their money "in the bank". The 70 billion Apple have loose.
Apples gross profit without money is 22%. With money it is 32%.
Must be lovely to be so ignorant. I suggest taking Accounting 101.
Quote:
To many incompetent expert that forget that Apple have 70 billion in the bank that generates large profits. If Apple closed everything today they would still make about 15 billion just from their cash.
To many incompetent expert that forget that Apple have 70 billion in the bank that generates large profits. If Apple closed everything today they would still make about 15 billion just from their cash.
By comparison, HP?s Personal Systems Group brought in $9.415 billion in revenue and turned a profit of $533 million last quarter. The PC maker's operating margin, which doesn?t factor in overhead costs, came in at 5.66%.
I would certainly like to see where he got the average price of HP's computers and just how many boxes the sold out of all the other items available in the division.
Quote:
HP Personal Systems Group (PSG), a division of Hewlett-Packard, provides desktop and notebook personal computers, workstations, handheld computers, calculators, software, and accessories. It markets both HP and Compaq-branded products to consumer and commercial customers. Its digital entertainment products include media center PCs, optical storage drives, and flat-panel televisions. PSG oversees HP's small and medium-size business (SMB) and commercial reseller channels, as well as volume direct sales of commercial PCs and entry-level to mid-range servers.
macs may be expensive, but they are not overpriced. apple is only in the business of making premium computers so you cannot compare a mac to an entry level hp, or dell, or any other oem. if you compare a mac to another premium computer you will find that they are fairly priced. anyhow i would rather pay a little extra for a mac knowing the profit apple makes off me will go to research in innovation and new products whereas hp will just pocket your money and continue to put out crap
this is very true, except in a single area, the cost of upgrading components... upgrade from 2 --> 4 GB of laptop ram is $90, i can get the same ram for under 40.... that not fair.
You get what you pay for. I'd rather pay a premium for a quality product than go the cheap route in the short term but pay for it in the long run (virus, software, time lost, upkeep, etc.)
All of the people and family I know of who are new to OSX say it is a dream compared to Windows... and they usually can't believe they waited so long to switch.
Since HP sells a lot more computers, this isn't really a fair comparison. The question we can't answer from the public data is if you take the most profitable N computers HP sold, where N is the number of computer Apple sold, how does the profitability compare? Apple can't scale well because they put so much effort into their unibody aluminum case construction, etc., while HP can shovel thousands of plastic hunks to businesses.
The HP sales were of their consumer machines. The low end, presumably. Presumably, the Apple sales include both the MacBook Pro and their high end workstations. But not enough info is given to even know what was compared.
This is a high-school kid, and very little information is given about his methodology.
HP's net income is 7.21%. Dell's net income is 5.26%. Apple's net income is 22.36%.
My guess is Apple is making more money selling one Mac than Dell does from nine, maybe ten PCs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph L
The HP sales were of their consumer machines. The low end, presumably. Presumably, the Apple sales include both the MacBook Pro and their high end workstations. But not enough info is given to even know what was compared.
This is a high-school kid, and very little information is given about his methodology.
Actually, the kid linked to HP's financial documents.
HP's Personal System Division includes everything but the big iron (ProLiant and Integrity), which falls into their Enterprise Server, Storage, and Network Division.
The kid's analysis is a very reasonable comparison between the two companies' product lines as Apple does not have blade server racks. It is not an apples-and-oranges (sorry about the pun) failure.
For those arguing this is an example of the Apple tax, your argument is fundamentally flawed.
The article is comparing all HP computers versus all Apple computers for dollar profit.
Apple doesn't sell $299 computers with razor thin margins.
The question you should ask yourself is what is the dollar profit for HP on comparably priced computers.
Using the largest selling model for Apple:
The low end iMac starts at $1199 and goes up to $1999. Do you really think HP only makes $52 on comparably priced computers really, I mean really do you?
Internally yes, but these numbers are being created by an analyst from consolidated results, so they will certainly include the share from OS-X - there's simply no way for an analyst to separate the OS profits from the hardware profits.
Does not matter what the OS costs, it is made by Apple. HP and the cloners have to pay a huge Microsoft tax on every PC sold, Apple gets to pay itself furthering their profits.
Say you take two computers which cost the same...
cost + HP mark-up + Microsoft tax = cost of cloner pc
cost + Apple mark-up = cost of Mac
So of course Apple makes more per computer than the cloners, there is no Microsoft tax
Gross margin for that quarter, 10.2 Billion - operating income 7.8 billion. Now go away and google what gross margin and operating income mean - you'll find that they exclude investment income.
Quote:
Other companies have larger gross profit then Apple: Marvel, Intel and so on.
And of course, there are companies whit less gross profit: AMD, HP and so on.
Intel - gross margin of 8billion and operating income of 4.3 billion for the last quarter. That would be less.
Marvel? The comic firm? Are you on drugs?
Quote:
To many incompetent expert that forget that Apple have 70 billion in the bank that generates large profits. If Apple closed everything today they would still make about 15 billion just from their cash.
If Apple managed to make 15BN off 70BN annually then Apple would be an amazingly good money manager, that would be a 21.4% return!
In fact Apple made around 300mil in 2010 off their then 50billion cash pile. They are extremely conservative in their investments, primarily being either US federal debt or blue chip corporate debt.
That's not their niche. Apple is more interested in being a quality leader whatever form that may be....
This means they are not interested in selling their products to the poor or the underprivileged which is most likely why they never donate any of their profits.
Comments
That "blog post" was written by a 15 year old.
It compares Apple to a single Windows PC vendor. Compare it to all of them and see if volume ends up making more money?
Writing a blog post off of another blog post written by a 15 year old makes the "AI staff" look like a collection of Morons.
I think it is interesting, and obviously, so do a lot of other people. Rude.
If they were too expensive, there would be little or no profit, as the market would reject them. Since they do make such profits, they seem to have priced the products well.
Their responsibility in this area (profitability) is to their stockholders, to maximize profits, not to you or me
Except his next argument is "That is only because the Apple fanboys are willing to give both their arms to buy anything with a shiny fruit logo on it"......and we all know you can´t argue with that.....
This only shows how Apple makes their products too expensive.
Should we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is sarcasm? Because if you are serious that's one of the most stupid, idiotic posts ever conceived by an Apple hater.
The gross profit is wrong on apple stuff.
People seems to forget that Apple makes loads of money from their money "in the bank". The 70 billion Apple have loose.
Apples gross profit without money is 22%. With money it is 32%.
Must be lovely to be so ignorant. I suggest taking Accounting 101.
To many incompetent expert that forget that Apple have 70 billion in the bank that generates large profits. If Apple closed everything today they would still make about 15 billion just from their cash.
Idiotic
To many incompetent expert that forget that Apple have 70 billion in the bank that generates large profits. If Apple closed everything today they would still make about 15 billion just from their cash.
Wow, where is this bank?
Have fun with your XP Dell...
By comparison, HP?s Personal Systems Group brought in $9.415 billion in revenue and turned a profit of $533 million last quarter. The PC maker's operating margin, which doesn?t factor in overhead costs, came in at 5.66%.
I would certainly like to see where he got the average price of HP's computers and just how many boxes the sold out of all the other items available in the division.
HP Personal Systems Group (PSG), a division of Hewlett-Packard, provides desktop and notebook personal computers, workstations, handheld computers, calculators, software, and accessories. It markets both HP and Compaq-branded products to consumer and commercial customers. Its digital entertainment products include media center PCs, optical storage drives, and flat-panel televisions. PSG oversees HP's small and medium-size business (SMB) and commercial reseller channels, as well as volume direct sales of commercial PCs and entry-level to mid-range servers.
http://www.hoovers.com/company/HP_Pe...rckfxif-1.html
Wow, where is this bank?
You're telling me. I'd love an interest rate like that.
macs may be expensive, but they are not overpriced. apple is only in the business of making premium computers so you cannot compare a mac to an entry level hp, or dell, or any other oem. if you compare a mac to another premium computer you will find that they are fairly priced. anyhow i would rather pay a little extra for a mac knowing the profit apple makes off me will go to research in innovation and new products whereas hp will just pocket your money and continue to put out crap
this is very true, except in a single area, the cost of upgrading components... upgrade from 2 --> 4 GB of laptop ram is $90, i can get the same ram for under 40.... that not fair.
but people should remember exactly what he said
You get what you pay for. I'd rather pay a premium for a quality product than go the cheap route in the short term but pay for it in the long run (virus, software, time lost, upkeep, etc.)
All of the people and family I know of who are new to OSX say it is a dream compared to Windows... and they usually can't believe they waited so long to switch.
Since HP sells a lot more computers, this isn't really a fair comparison. The question we can't answer from the public data is if you take the most profitable N computers HP sold, where N is the number of computer Apple sold, how does the profitability compare? Apple can't scale well because they put so much effort into their unibody aluminum case construction, etc., while HP can shovel thousands of plastic hunks to businesses.
The HP sales were of their consumer machines. The low end, presumably. Presumably, the Apple sales include both the MacBook Pro and their high end workstations. But not enough info is given to even know what was compared.
This is a high-school kid, and very little information is given about his methodology.
Interesting... How does it fare against DELL?
HP's net income is 7.21%. Dell's net income is 5.26%. Apple's net income is 22.36%.
My guess is Apple is making more money selling one Mac than Dell does from nine, maybe ten PCs.
The HP sales were of their consumer machines. The low end, presumably. Presumably, the Apple sales include both the MacBook Pro and their high end workstations. But not enough info is given to even know what was compared.
This is a high-school kid, and very little information is given about his methodology.
Actually, the kid linked to HP's financial documents.
HP's Personal System Division includes everything but the big iron (ProLiant and Integrity), which falls into their Enterprise Server, Storage, and Network Division.
The kid's analysis is a very reasonable comparison between the two companies' product lines as Apple does not have blade server racks. It is not an apples-and-oranges (sorry about the pun) failure.
That logo tells me that making computers wasn't the only thing that the two Steves were doing in that garage ...
It is well known that Steve Jobs has tripped on LSD. That is part of what makes him Steve.
Let's be glad that the third Steve (yeah - that "Ballmer" guy) does not use drugs. Windows would be different!
The article is comparing all HP computers versus all Apple computers for dollar profit.
Apple doesn't sell $299 computers with razor thin margins.
The question you should ask yourself is what is the dollar profit for HP on comparably priced computers.
Using the largest selling model for Apple:
The low end iMac starts at $1199 and goes up to $1999. Do you really think HP only makes $52 on comparably priced computers really, I mean really do you?
Internally yes, but these numbers are being created by an analyst from consolidated results, so they will certainly include the share from OS-X - there's simply no way for an analyst to separate the OS profits from the hardware profits.
Does not matter what the OS costs, it is made by Apple. HP and the cloners have to pay a huge Microsoft tax on every PC sold, Apple gets to pay itself furthering their profits.
Say you take two computers which cost the same...
cost + HP mark-up + Microsoft tax = cost of cloner pc
cost + Apple mark-up = cost of Mac
So of course Apple makes more per computer than the cloners, there is no Microsoft tax
The gross profit is wrong on apple stuff.
Apples gross profit without money is 22%. With money it is 32%.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html
Gross margin for that quarter, 10.2 Billion - operating income 7.8 billion. Now go away and google what gross margin and operating income mean - you'll find that they exclude investment income.
Other companies have larger gross profit then Apple: Marvel, Intel and so on.
And of course, there are companies whit less gross profit: AMD, HP and so on.
Intel - gross margin of 8billion and operating income of 4.3 billion for the last quarter. That would be less.
Marvel? The comic firm? Are you on drugs?
To many incompetent expert that forget that Apple have 70 billion in the bank that generates large profits. If Apple closed everything today they would still make about 15 billion just from their cash.
If Apple managed to make 15BN off 70BN annually then Apple would be an amazingly good money manager, that would be a 21.4% return!
In fact Apple made around 300mil in 2010 off their then 50billion cash pile. They are extremely conservative in their investments, primarily being either US federal debt or blue chip corporate debt.
This means they are not interested in selling their products to the poor or the underprivileged which is most likely why they never donate any of their profits.