In a poorly veiled attempt to attract Asian tweens, it was clear to me and anyone with two eyes that the 5C iPhone was ill conceived, poorly designed, and released in the most hideous colors imaginable. The marketing campaign for the 5C also bordered on reverse racism. It's obvious Apple can't get out of its own way and Tim Cook doesn't have the capacity to lead. Glib denials aside, that's the reality.
WTF is racist about a colored iPhone? You should be banned for this comment.
The release of a larger iPhone will definitely help with sales but that is only a short term fix. After 4 years with essentially the same design for the iPhone I also expect the iPhone 6 to look radically different so that should help boost sales and bring back some excitement. Perhaps they will also figure out a better way forward for the successor to the 5c to address the growing midrange phone sector where most real growth is happening.
But ultimately Apple is far too dependent on the iPhone for growth. I am hoping for some completely new product categories to take the pressure off of iPhone sales. Home automation devices, a real iOS in the car product that goes well beyond what we have seen thus far, an AppleTV with DVR capabilities, HDMI in and out, and game support complete with a real controller, maybe a wearable type device. Who knows, but I hope all the talk about new products down the pipeline over the last 3 years is based on some actual new products and not just more refreshes of the current products.
2) There is a change to the upgrade cycle where probably reduced the number of potential upgrades in the US. He thinks that will work out to normal - 3-8 months ( the carriers moved from 18 to 24 month upgrades).
3) Sell-Through was higher than Sell-In ( i.e. real sales better than shipments, which is their headline figures) because of difference in inventory level s last year.
That mostly explains the US.
Revenue was partly down because of a higher dollar, low iPod sales, and the deferral of income.
Revenue next Q is down because.
1) Higher dollar.
2) They sold in a lot to channel last year, as they hadn't really got the iPhone 5 up to full capacity the previous Q.
3) China mobile is only in 16 cities, with the iPhone but is going to be in 300 eventually.
4) low iPod sales ( a saturated market).
5) deferred revenue.
Eventually I assume the deferred revenue will start to come good.
Agree completely. This is a stockholder issue (and I own Apple stock). I talked to an Apple engineer over the holiday break and he was genuinely excited about the product pipeline. I'm looking forward to more great Apple products, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to make more money. Shareholders were fine with Apple accumulating cash when Apple was growing. Well guess what Tim Cook, Apple isn't growing anymore and we want our money. The CEO works for the shareholders and we don't believe Tim can invest that 160 billion as well as we can. It is our money, not his. Give it back.
What a pretentious douchebag! Shareholders DON'T OWN Apple, it's not YOUR MONEY, and you're not IN CHARGE! You are along for the ride in the game called investing, and if you don't like how the company conducts itself, you pull your coins out and go elsewhere.
If Apple were run by dipshits like you, it'd be run into the ground faster than you can blink, and 1997 would repeat all over again! GTFO!
WS: it's Apple's fault that its actual data does not correspond to my wild guessing.
Exactly, earnings or sales don't miss estimates; estimates miss earnings. No one ever says "the weather missed estimates." They blame the weatherman for getting it wrong. Finance is the only industry where people blame their poor forecasting skills on reality.
2) There is a change to the upgrade cycle where probably reduced the number of potential upgrades in the US. He thinks that will work out to normal - 3-8 months ( the carriers moved from 18 to 24 month upgrades).
3) Sell-Through was higher than Sell-In ( i.e. real sales better than shipments, which is their headline figures) because of difference in inventory level s last year.
That mostly explains the US.
Revenue was partly down because of a higher dollar, low iPod sales, and the deferral of income.
Revenue next Q is down because.
1) Higher dollar.
2) They sold in a lot to channel last year, as they hadn't really got the iPhone 5 up to full capacity the previous Q.
3) China mobile is only in 16 cities, with the iPhone but is going to be in 300 eventually.
4) low iPod sales ( a saturated market).
5) deferred revenue.
Eventually I assume the deferred revenue will start to come good.
Finally, someone that speaks some common sense around here! I guess those anal-ysts didn't bother to listen to the Q&A, as those factors were spot-on and completely logical explanations / justifications.
Disagree here as well. Tim Cook's stubbornness with selling a low priced phone is going to hurt Apple long term. The long term story in phones are the services that you sell on top of the phone. Apple needs its platform to be big. The only way it can do that is by selling a lower priced phone that can compete in the market. I realize that taking a hit on margins will actually probably cause the stock to drop in the short term. However, I think in the long term having a large market share will be good for its services business like apps, iTunes, mobile payments, search, etc.
The sign of a good CEO is one that can see the future and do what is best for the company. Based on Tim Cook's response to failing with the iPhone 5C I really question his ability to lead the company. Essentially he is saying, we tried a different pricing structure and it failed so I'm just going to go back to making good products and hope it works out well for us. Talk about a lack of vision. Targeting the high end of the market was the right thing for Apple during the Steve Jobs years. However, it is damn obvious that Apple is in a different situation now and Tim needs to pivot. The "great product strategy" is going to suck for shareholders.
I disagree in many ways...
I won't say that Apple need to have a big platform, but to reach a minimum threshold, what I consider they have reached. Moreover, they clearly have the wealthy share of the market, what is a major achievement.
I suspect you have doubts about T. Cook since Day 1. The fact is, is has been chosen by S. Jobs himself and he clearly knows how to manage this company.
The iPhone 5c doesn't say more about T. Cook than "Mobile me" or the "Cube" for S. Jobs.
"The great product strategy" is the strategy of S. Jobs. Should Apple goes on the same roads than Samsung, that will be the end of Apple.
(note: as English is not my first language, I'm pretty sure that all is not grammatically right, but hopefully you should understand the idea )
Why people still give these people any credit?
Because they are rich?
And the BBC is off, very off on this.
I wonder if it is a vendetta or just pure stupidity.
Stupid is a better reason. So many analysts and TV pundits were saying "buy Enron" before that company collapsed in a huge accounting scandal. Tells me that none of the talking heads knows anything.
Disagree here as well. Tim Cook's stubbornness with selling a low priced phone is going to hurt Apple long term. The long term story in phones are the services that you sell on top of the phone. Apple needs its platform to be big. The only way it can do that is by selling a lower priced phone that can compete in the market. I realize that taking a hit on margins will actually probably cause the stock to drop in the short term. However, I think in the long term having a large market share will be good for its services business like apps, iTunes, mobile payments, search, etc.
The sign of a good CEO is one that can see the future and do what is best for the company. Based on Tim Cook's response to failing with the iPhone 5C I really question his ability to lead the company. Essentially he is saying, we tried a different pricing structure and it failed so I'm just going to go back to making good products and hope it works out well for us. Talk about a lack of vision. Targeting the high end of the market was the right thing for Apple during the Steve Jobs years. However, it is damn obvious that Apple is in a different situation now and Tim needs to pivot. The "great product strategy" is going to suck for shareholders.
If it was Apple Mobile Phone Co, inc. you may have a point, but Apple, inc. makes top tier produces across several categories. Saying they need a long term story in phones is like saying they need a long term story in iPods. They need new products that expand their ecosystem as well as create new revenue streams. They could be phones or kazoos, it doesn't matter but they will come. I don't recall any gap in time where the iPod went from being desirable to being an undesirable product hemorrhaging money for the company before the iPhone came along. They may or may not have a hard time replicating the same exponential success of the iPhone, but they certainly can find ways increase revenues. The next killer product category may not even be a device but a service built on the existing installed base. Mobile payments could be a silent but generous money printer for Apple.
Splitting hairs over the iPhone 5C that actually sold in higher volumes than the relegated 4S last year and with a greater profit margin than the iPhone 5 would have had it been downgraded to the cheaper seats, is not any indication of a misstep by Cook. If anything, it goes to prove that Apple's market is the high end and cheaper phones designed specifically to be cheaper are not what their customers want. This was validation of Cook's stated vision for Apple all along.
Interesting that Apple hit the revenue and EPS estimates while "missing" the analysts numbers for the iPhone.
Makes you wonder how the analysts overall numbers could have made any sense - had Apple sold the analyst estimated 56 million iPhones, their revenue would have seriously beat the overall street numbers.
That Apple hit revenue and earnings numbers while missing iPhone unit numbers by 10% calls someones arithmetic skills into question.
Wall Street believes that Apple is the Titanic; forever doomed to hit an iceberg and sink.
Apple believes it is the iceberg; a powerful entity mostly hidden from view.
Icebergs are the disruptors, not Titanics.
Perhaps in future Apple should follows google and stop giving out guidance because whatever they do is just not right inspire of making a profit of $13b.
Perhaps in WS eyes all the tech companies are also in Apple's league that is making billions in profits, sadly not so.
Finally, someone that speaks some common sense around here! I guess those anal-ysts didn't bother to listen to the Q&A, as those factors were spot-on and completely logical explanations / justifications.
Justification of factors for lower revenue next Q doesn't change the fact that it's still lower revenue for next Q. That's what the stock price is based on - expected revenues. i.e. Blackberry's report - we have lower revenue expectations for the next year because we don't expect to sell as much. Completely spot-on and logical. Would it be wrong for their stock to devalue too?
If/when their revenues show an increased growth rate again, then their stock price will increase.
Exactly, earnings or sales don't miss estimates; estimates miss earnings. No one ever says "the weather missed estimates." They blame the weatherman for getting it wrong. Finance is the only industry where people blame their poor forecasting skills on reality.
The issue, I've come to see, is that when those analyst estimates on future earnings are acted on (buy stock) and that drives up the stock price in response, when those estimates are revealed to be inaccurate the response is pulled back (stock is sold), and that reduces the price.
When the weather forecast is for rain I grab an umbrella: once the forecast is shown wrong with clearing skies, I get rid of the umbrella.... I might blame the weatherman but I still drop the umbrella.
Should the analysts or weather forecasters be believed? Or the P/E ratio this low? Different issues.
Not even counting the times when Cook took the reins in Jobs' absence, Cook led Apple to its biggest quarter ever (the one under discussion here), not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of sales. It's also one of Apple's best Mac quarters ever.
And we're not talking sales based on a tired old business model (an OS and a lousy office suite) that ignores the pace of change (there's such a thing as making money from all the wrong things), but one that reflects in the most exacting way possible, everything that is important about current market dynamics.
The problem here isn't Apple's performance, which is not only astounding in purely tech company terms, but also in terms of *any* company *ever*.
This is the fourth-highest quarterly earnings by any company (any country). Of the six highest earnings ever, Apple now owns positions 4, 5, and 6. The top three are all oil companies.
The problem is Wall Street expectations (not Apple's performance), most of which do not (and need not) have any actual basis in reality.
And Apple's astounding achievement is based on what, exactly? A closed, proprietary platform that fits into a vertical business model, with only a very limited number of products at its core. Streamlined product portfolio, no OEMs.
Comments
WTF is racist about a colored iPhone? You should be banned for this comment.
WTF?
The release of a larger iPhone will definitely help with sales but that is only a short term fix. After 4 years with essentially the same design for the iPhone I also expect the iPhone 6 to look radically different so that should help boost sales and bring back some excitement. Perhaps they will also figure out a better way forward for the successor to the 5c to address the growing midrange phone sector where most real growth is happening.
But ultimately Apple is far too dependent on the iPhone for growth. I am hoping for some completely new product categories to take the pressure off of iPhone sales. Home automation devices, a real iOS in the car product that goes well beyond what we have seen thus far, an AppleTV with DVR capabilities, HDMI in and out, and game support complete with a real controller, maybe a wearable type device. Who knows, but I hope all the talk about new products down the pipeline over the last 3 years is based on some actual new products and not just more refreshes of the current products.
I actually went to listen to the Q&A.
Reasons for fewer iPhones this year.
1) They got the mix wrong - he admitted that.
2) There is a change to the upgrade cycle where probably reduced the number of potential upgrades in the US. He thinks that will work out to normal - 3-8 months ( the carriers moved from 18 to 24 month upgrades).
3) Sell-Through was higher than Sell-In ( i.e. real sales better than shipments, which is their headline figures) because of difference in inventory level s last year.
That mostly explains the US.
Revenue was partly down because of a higher dollar, low iPod sales, and the deferral of income.
Revenue next Q is down because.
1) Higher dollar.
2) They sold in a lot to channel last year, as they hadn't really got the iPhone 5 up to full capacity the previous Q.
3) China mobile is only in 16 cities, with the iPhone but is going to be in 300 eventually.
4) low iPod sales ( a saturated market).
5) deferred revenue.
Eventually I assume the deferred revenue will start to come good.
Transcript here. http://www.morningstar.com/earnings/earnings-call-transcript.aspx?t=AAPL&pindex=6&qindex=1
Really a perception problem.
Wall Street believes that Apple is the Titanic; forever doomed to hit an iceberg and sink.
Apple believes it is the iceberg; a powerful entity mostly hidden from view.
Icebergs are the disruptors, not Titanics.
Agree completely. This is a stockholder issue (and I own Apple stock). I talked to an Apple engineer over the holiday break and he was genuinely excited about the product pipeline. I'm looking forward to more great Apple products, but that doesn't mean Apple is going to make more money. Shareholders were fine with Apple accumulating cash when Apple was growing. Well guess what Tim Cook, Apple isn't growing anymore and we want our money. The CEO works for the shareholders and we don't believe Tim can invest that 160 billion as well as we can. It is our money, not his. Give it back.
What a pretentious douchebag! Shareholders DON'T OWN Apple, it's not YOUR MONEY, and you're not IN CHARGE! You are along for the ride in the game called investing, and if you don't like how the company conducts itself, you pull your coins out and go elsewhere.
If Apple were run by dipshits like you, it'd be run into the ground faster than you can blink, and 1997 would repeat all over again! GTFO!
Exactly, earnings or sales don't miss estimates; estimates miss earnings. No one ever says "the weather missed estimates." They blame the weatherman for getting it wrong. Finance is the only industry where people blame their poor forecasting skills on reality.
I actually went to listen to the Q&A.
Reasons for fewer iPhones this year.
1) They got the mix wrong - he admitted that.
2) There is a change to the upgrade cycle where probably reduced the number of potential upgrades in the US. He thinks that will work out to normal - 3-8 months ( the carriers moved from 18 to 24 month upgrades).
3) Sell-Through was higher than Sell-In ( i.e. real sales better than shipments, which is their headline figures) because of difference in inventory level s last year.
That mostly explains the US.
Revenue was partly down because of a higher dollar, low iPod sales, and the deferral of income.
Revenue next Q is down because.
1) Higher dollar.
2) They sold in a lot to channel last year, as they hadn't really got the iPhone 5 up to full capacity the previous Q.
3) China mobile is only in 16 cities, with the iPhone but is going to be in 300 eventually.
4) low iPod sales ( a saturated market).
5) deferred revenue.
Eventually I assume the deferred revenue will start to come good.
Transcript here. http://www.morningstar.com/earnings/earnings-call-transcript.aspx?t=AAPL&pindex=6&qindex=1
Finally, someone that speaks some common sense around here! I guess those anal-ysts didn't bother to listen to the Q&A, as those factors were spot-on and completely logical explanations / justifications.
Disagree here as well. Tim Cook's stubbornness with selling a low priced phone is going to hurt Apple long term. The long term story in phones are the services that you sell on top of the phone. Apple needs its platform to be big. The only way it can do that is by selling a lower priced phone that can compete in the market. I realize that taking a hit on margins will actually probably cause the stock to drop in the short term. However, I think in the long term having a large market share will be good for its services business like apps, iTunes, mobile payments, search, etc.
The sign of a good CEO is one that can see the future and do what is best for the company. Based on Tim Cook's response to failing with the iPhone 5C I really question his ability to lead the company. Essentially he is saying, we tried a different pricing structure and it failed so I'm just going to go back to making good products and hope it works out well for us. Talk about a lack of vision. Targeting the high end of the market was the right thing for Apple during the Steve Jobs years. However, it is damn obvious that Apple is in a different situation now and Tim needs to pivot. The "great product strategy" is going to suck for shareholders.
I disagree in many ways...
I won't say that Apple need to have a big platform, but to reach a minimum threshold, what I consider they have reached. Moreover, they clearly have the wealthy share of the market, what is a major achievement.
I suspect you have doubts about T. Cook since Day 1. The fact is, is has been chosen by S. Jobs himself and he clearly knows how to manage this company.
The iPhone 5c doesn't say more about T. Cook than "Mobile me" or the "Cube" for S. Jobs.
"The great product strategy" is the strategy of S. Jobs. Should Apple goes on the same roads than Samsung, that will be the end of Apple.
(note: as English is not my first language, I'm pretty sure that all is not grammatically right, but hopefully you should understand the idea
)
Stupid is a better reason. So many analysts and TV pundits were saying "buy Enron" before that company collapsed in a huge accounting scandal. Tells me that none of the talking heads knows anything.
There's a button for that.
Where does Apple go from here? What's the plan? Failing on plan 1 is not a good sign.
Guessing from your reply you know better than those guys at Apple on what to do.
Why not tell us what you would do if you are Tim Cook.
Try not to reply the same crap as new products which we all knw sort of.
Disagree here as well. Tim Cook's stubbornness with selling a low priced phone is going to hurt Apple long term. The long term story in phones are the services that you sell on top of the phone. Apple needs its platform to be big. The only way it can do that is by selling a lower priced phone that can compete in the market. I realize that taking a hit on margins will actually probably cause the stock to drop in the short term. However, I think in the long term having a large market share will be good for its services business like apps, iTunes, mobile payments, search, etc.
The sign of a good CEO is one that can see the future and do what is best for the company. Based on Tim Cook's response to failing with the iPhone 5C I really question his ability to lead the company. Essentially he is saying, we tried a different pricing structure and it failed so I'm just going to go back to making good products and hope it works out well for us. Talk about a lack of vision. Targeting the high end of the market was the right thing for Apple during the Steve Jobs years. However, it is damn obvious that Apple is in a different situation now and Tim needs to pivot. The "great product strategy" is going to suck for shareholders.
If it was Apple Mobile Phone Co, inc. you may have a point, but Apple, inc. makes top tier produces across several categories. Saying they need a long term story in phones is like saying they need a long term story in iPods. They need new products that expand their ecosystem as well as create new revenue streams. They could be phones or kazoos, it doesn't matter but they will come. I don't recall any gap in time where the iPod went from being desirable to being an undesirable product hemorrhaging money for the company before the iPhone came along. They may or may not have a hard time replicating the same exponential success of the iPhone, but they certainly can find ways increase revenues. The next killer product category may not even be a device but a service built on the existing installed base. Mobile payments could be a silent but generous money printer for Apple.
Splitting hairs over the iPhone 5C that actually sold in higher volumes than the relegated 4S last year and with a greater profit margin than the iPhone 5 would have had it been downgraded to the cheaper seats, is not any indication of a misstep by Cook. If anything, it goes to prove that Apple's market is the high end and cheaper phones designed specifically to be cheaper are not what their customers want. This was validation of Cook's stated vision for Apple all along.
Makes you wonder how the analysts overall numbers could have made any sense - had Apple sold the analyst estimated 56 million iPhones, their revenue would have seriously beat the overall street numbers.
That Apple hit revenue and earnings numbers while missing iPhone unit numbers by 10% calls someones arithmetic skills into question.
Really a perception problem.
Wall Street believes that Apple is the Titanic; forever doomed to hit an iceberg and sink.
Apple believes it is the iceberg; a powerful entity mostly hidden from view.
Icebergs are the disruptors, not Titanics.
Perhaps in future Apple should follows google and stop giving out guidance because whatever they do is just not right inspire of making a profit of $13b.
Perhaps in WS eyes all the tech companies are also in Apple's league that is making billions in profits, sadly not so.
Finally, someone that speaks some common sense around here! I guess those anal-ysts didn't bother to listen to the Q&A, as those factors were spot-on and completely logical explanations / justifications.
Justification of factors for lower revenue next Q doesn't change the fact that it's still lower revenue for next Q. That's what the stock price is based on - expected revenues. i.e. Blackberry's report - we have lower revenue expectations for the next year because we don't expect to sell as much. Completely spot-on and logical. Would it be wrong for their stock to devalue too?
If/when their revenues show an increased growth rate again, then their stock price will increase.
I believe his reply would have been something along the lines of "F@!& off".
WTF?
Gotta agree with you. Claiming that someone else is being racist, whether or not they are, doesn’t sound bannable.
Sounds absolutely ludicrous when they’re wrong, but not bannable.
Exactly, earnings or sales don't miss estimates; estimates miss earnings. No one ever says "the weather missed estimates." They blame the weatherman for getting it wrong. Finance is the only industry where people blame their poor forecasting skills on reality.
The issue, I've come to see, is that when those analyst estimates on future earnings are acted on (buy stock) and that drives up the stock price in response, when those estimates are revealed to be inaccurate the response is pulled back (stock is sold), and that reduces the price.
When the weather forecast is for rain I grab an umbrella: once the forecast is shown wrong with clearing skies, I get rid of the umbrella.... I might blame the weatherman but I still drop the umbrella.
Should the analysts or weather forecasters be believed? Or the P/E ratio this low? Different issues.
Cook doesn't know how to lead?
Not even counting the times when Cook took the reins in Jobs' absence, Cook led Apple to its biggest quarter ever (the one under discussion here), not just in terms of dollars, but in terms of sales. It's also one of Apple's best Mac quarters ever.
And we're not talking sales based on a tired old business model (an OS and a lousy office suite) that ignores the pace of change (there's such a thing as making money from all the wrong things), but one that reflects in the most exacting way possible, everything that is important about current market dynamics.
The problem here isn't Apple's performance, which is not only astounding in purely tech company terms, but also in terms of *any* company *ever*.
This is the fourth-highest quarterly earnings by any company (any country). Of the six highest earnings ever, Apple now owns positions 4, 5, and 6. The top three are all oil companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_Corporate_Quarterly_Earnings_of_All_Time
Largest Corporate Quarterly Earnings of All Time:
The problem is Wall Street expectations (not Apple's performance), most of which do not (and need not) have any actual basis in reality.
And Apple's astounding achievement is based on what, exactly? A closed, proprietary platform that fits into a vertical business model, with only a very limited number of products at its core. Streamlined product portfolio, no OEMs.
Think about it.