Mercedes does offer low cost cars. You've heard of the A-Class and B-Class right?
Low cost is relative. They still aren't mass market items in the sense that many people would have to spend a large portion of their income to purchase or lease and insure one.
Low cost is relative. They still aren't mass market items in the sense that many people would have to spend a large portion of their income to purchase or lease and insure one.
The average sale price of a vehicle in the U.S. is $31,252
The Mercedes starts at $29,995.
I'm saying these models are for mass market and well within the range of the everyday normal consumer that buys a new car.
Where exactly is it "called profit AND loss"? It's profit OR loss, you can't have both profit & loss simultaneously. You add up all the profits & all the losses and you end up with either a net profit or a net loss. You might want to refresh your math skills, this isn't bad math.
I Googled "Profit OR Loss Statement" but all I could find was AND... not OR.
You're right... a company can't have both a profit and a loss. But it's still shown on a single document called an "Income Statement"
"An income statement (US English) or profit and loss account (UK English)[1] (also referred to as a profit and loss statement (P&L), revenue statement, statement of financial performance, earnings statement, operating statement, or statement of operations)"
Did you notice the AND ?
Back to the topic... Apple and Samsung showed profits... everyone else showed losses.
But it's still reported in a document called a Profit and Loss Statement.
Or maybe we should just say Income Statement from now on...
What would be the point of reporting something that is always true? All the profitable companies put together always make 100% of the profits. It just takes up space and provides zero insight. There's nothing misleading about "bundling it in one number" it shows the relative strength of Apple & Samsung compared to the rest of the industry.
It may have been discussed before.. But it is a bogus number!
I can add or subtract or multiply a few more irrelevant variables to that if it makes people happy.. But at the end it is meaningless!
Bundling profit and loss by "independent " entities into one number is bogus!
Industry made 100 dollars... Some lost total of 20 dollars ......Therefore total industry profit was 80??? U see this as a valid statement???...,Then the companies who profited had 100/80 of the profit.125% of the profit? .. Bogus. The number 80 is confusing at best !
Blackberry loss has nothing to do with apple profit if blackberry chooses to throw billion dollor toga parties every month ( for sake of example) ..and show a loss at the end of the year.
Also those who lost did not get a % of that profit . They lost . It would be correct to say that their loss was equal to 6% of the profits made in the industry..
As i said better way is to say appl and samdung got 100% ( apple 70 , dung 30...for example ) and the remainder lost 6%.
If you add up the gains and the losses it adds up to 100%. Leave out the losses and the gains equal 106%. This has all been discussed before.
It may have been discussed before.. But it is a bogus number!
I can add or subtract or multiply a few more irrelevant variables to that if it makes people happy.. But at the end it is meaningless!
Bundling profit and loss by "independent " entities into one number is bogus!
Industry made 100 dollars... Some lost total of 20 dollars ......Therefore total industry profit was 80??? U see this as a valid statement???...,Then the companies who profited had 100/80 of the profit.125% of the profit? .. Bogus. The number 80 is confusing at best !
Blackberry loss has nothing to do with apple profit if blackberry chooses to throw billion dollor toga parties every month ( for sake of example) ..and show a loss at the end of the year.
Also those who lost did not get a % of that profit . They lost . It would be correct to say that their loss was equal to 6% of the profits made in the industry..
As i said better way is to say appl and samdung got 100% ( apple 70 , dung 30...for example ) and the remainder lost 6%.
I don't understand why these smartphone manufacturers continue to hang in and lose money. It doesn't make any sense to just keep getting pounded quarter after quarter. I'm sure there must be other things they can do where they can be profitable. With Google's stupid, freely licensed Android OS, everyone and their mother thinks they can be some smartphone mogul building dirt-cheap smartphones out from their garages and basements. There's simply just too much of a glut of Android smartphones on the market and why can't these people see that there are no profits to be made by being a minor player. I thought the Android tablet market would also have shaken out the peanut-gallery manufacturers by now. It's like they don't know when to quit. Are they stupid or do they think they're going to get lucky? Why are there so many smartphone manufacturers? There's probably more smartphone manufacturers than microwave oven or toaster companies. It's just so absurd for them all to think they can take down the big boys that are flush with cash. Every other day on Engadget there's some new Android smartphone that's supposedly going to put Apple's iPhone business into ruins. A month later and the company is never heard from again.
Google's Android OS gave all these nobodies dreams of grandeur and the sooner it stops the better. Please, no more Android smartphones.
There’s a sucker born every minute and somebody has to take advantage of them.
<quote>What a dumb headline. Losses aren't profits. You can't grab more than 100% of something. Apple and Samsung combined grabbed 100% of the profits.</quote>
Thank you for saving me the time and effort.
Unfortunately there isn't a 'loss' column so losses are shown as negative profit. To show a industry wide profit total the positives and negatives are added to show 100% of profit. Omit the negatives from the equation and the number goes over 100%. Does it make sense? No but that's the method used.
Apple takes 61.3% of handset profits, Samsung takes 38.7%, all others lose or break-even
How's that for a headline?
Terrible. You first have to throw out most of Samsung's sales. That makes the numbers line up to more to where Apple has 80% of the profits. Better, yes?
Apple takes 61.3% of handset profits, Samsung takes 38.7%, all others lose or break-even
How's that for a headline?
A couple other posters have written comments that give me the argument I was looking for to back up the headline written the way I would have written it. That argument goes something like this:
Q: How much of the entire smartphone profits were made by Apple and Samsung?
A: All of the profits were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So no other company in the industry made any profits on smartphones?
A: That's correct. All of the profits that were made, were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So when speaking of smartphone profits, we need only speak of Apple and Samsung?
A: Yes, because they are the only companies that made smartphone profits and they made all of the profits.
Q: What's a mathematical way to express 'all of the profits?'
A: 100% of the profits.
Ah, I see more clearly now.
I'd like to thank the poster who took the argument for 106% to a logical extreme, with the notion that if the other market participants lost almost as much as Apple and Samsung made, the article title would have to have been phrased something like, "Apple & Samsung combine for 10,000,000% of handset profits..." That was a great maneuver on your part.
One final way of looking at the article headline. The headline speaks of profits. another word for profits is gains. When speaking of profits, or gains, you are speaking only to one side of the profit/loss scenario, and therefore it is illogical to include in a reference to profits any significance of losses. That's another whole conversation. So you could say, Apple and Samsung take 100% of profits, Blackberry, Nokia and Motorola share 100% of losses, while others break-even.
I'm going to get dinged but Apple should seriously consider Wozniaks suggestion and have Apple offer Android cell phones. If Apple buys, HTC...they get contracts, licenses, etc. as well. HTC is considered by the Industry the best Android phone worldwide. Image it would shake the very foundation of Samsungs plastic phone.
Mercedes does offer low cost cars. You've heard of the A-Class and B-Class right?
They go much cheaper than the A-class. Mercedes is just the luxury arm branding of Daimler AG which makes Smart city cars.
Also saying Apple and Samsung are taking all 'the industry profits' is disingenuous. Google rakes it in. Not through the manufacturing - indeed it lost out here with Motorola, but through it's own android-feeds-personal-info-feeds-advertising-profit business model.
All this focus on Samsung as the prime copyist and competitor, in courts and in headlines, lets the main offender off the hook.
Geez I wish AI and others would start using actual arithmetic (1st grade math).
Stop using a number over 100%. You can't have more than 100% of something (unless you're NASA and your engine is rated at 1 million pounds of thrust and you push it to 104% of that rating) even if others are losing money.
The average sale price of a vehicle in the U.S. is $31,252
The Mercedes starts at $29,995.
I'm saying these models are for mass market and well within the range of the everyday normal consumer that buys a new car.
That's actually debatable because "average" is a very poor mathematical construct for any set of data with only one firm boundary.
Sell 99 cars for $25,000 then sell one Bugatti for $500,000. The average selling price for those 100 cars is $29,750 even though 99% of vehicles sold for less than the average.
But yes Mercedes does sell cars that many people can afford.
That's actually debatable because "average" is a very poor mathematical construct for any set of data with only one firm boundary.
Sell 99 cars for $25,000 then sell one Bugatti for $500,000. The average selling price for those 100 cars is $29,750 even though 99% of vehicles sold for less than the average.
But yes Mercedes does sell cars that many people can afford.
Two things:
1) I absolutely agree with you on the average math and I believe it does take this into account but I'd have to go back and check the source again. So, you're correct in this aspect.
2) Where the hell do you buy a Bugatti for $500,000? Almost all the ones I've looked at are a million plus.
A couple other posters have written comments that give me the argument I was looking for to back up the headline written the way I would have written it. That argument goes something like this:
Q: How much of the entire smartphone profits were made by Apple and Samsung?
A: All of the profits were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So no other company in the industry made any profits on smartphones?
A: That's correct. All of the profits that were made, were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So when speaking of smartphone profits, we need only speak of Apple and Samsung?
A: Yes, because they are the only companies that made smartphone profits and they made all of the profits.
Q: What's a mathematical way to express 'all of the profits?'
A: 100% of the profits.
Ah, I see more clearly now.
I'd like to thank the poster who took the argument for 106% to a logical extreme, with the notion that if the other market participants lost almost as much as Apple and Samsung made, the article title would have to have been phrased something like, "Apple & Samsung combine for 10,000,000% of handset profits..." That was a great maneuver on your part.
One final way of looking at the article headline. The headline speaks of profits. another word for profits is gains. When speaking of profits, or gains, you are speaking only to one side of the profit/loss scenario, and therefore it is illogical to include in a reference to profits any significance of losses. That's another whole conversation. So you could say, Apple and Samsung take 100% of profits, Blackberry, Nokia and Motorola share 100% of losses, while others break-even.
Right, it's physically impossible to take more than 100% of an object or collection.
In another context, however, it's perfectly acceptable to use percentages above 100%. For example Apple's stock price is up about 15000% since the mid 1990s.
That's actually debatable because "average" is a very poor mathematical construct for any set of data with only one firm boundary.
Sell 99 cars for $25,000 then sell one Bugatti for $500,000. The average selling price for those 100 cars is $29,750 even though 99% of vehicles sold for less than the average.
But yes Mercedes does sell cars that many people can afford.
That's why there's 3 different ways to figure out a average; mean, median, and mode. Many times the highest and/or lowest amount are omitted because of an example as yours.
Comments
Mercedes does offer low cost cars. You've heard of the A-Class and B-Class right?
Low cost is relative. They still aren't mass market items in the sense that many people would have to spend a large portion of their income to purchase or lease and insure one.
So I can one for <$15k?
Low cost is relative. They still aren't mass market items in the sense that many people would have to spend a large portion of their income to purchase or lease and insure one.
The average sale price of a vehicle in the U.S. is $31,252
The Mercedes starts at $29,995.
I'm saying these models are for mass market and well within the range of the everyday normal consumer that buys a new car.
I Googled "Profit OR Loss Statement" but all I could find was AND... not OR.
You're right... a company can't have both a profit and a loss. But it's still shown on a single document called an "Income Statement"
"An income statement (US English) or profit and loss account (UK English)[1] (also referred to as a profit and loss statement (P&L), revenue statement, statement of financial performance, earnings statement, operating statement, or statement of operations)"
Did you notice the AND ?
Back to the topic... Apple and Samsung showed profits... everyone else showed losses.
But it's still reported in a document called a Profit and Loss Statement.
Or maybe we should just say Income Statement from now on...
The average sale price of a vehicle in the U.S. is $31,252
I didn't think it was that high. I'm too cheap to spend that on a car. There's that and that I hate driving.
It may have been discussed before.. But it is a bogus number!
I can add or subtract or multiply a few more irrelevant variables to that if it makes people happy.. But at the end it is meaningless!
Bundling profit and loss by "independent " entities into one number is bogus!
Industry made 100 dollars... Some lost total of 20 dollars ......Therefore total industry profit was 80??? U see this as a valid statement???...,Then the companies who profited had 100/80 of the profit.125% of the profit? .. Bogus. The number 80 is confusing at best !
Blackberry loss has nothing to do with apple profit if blackberry chooses to throw billion dollor toga parties every month ( for sake of example) ..and show a loss at the end of the year.
Also those who lost did not get a % of that profit . They lost . It would be correct to say that their loss was equal to 6% of the profits made in the industry..
As i said better way is to say appl and samdung got 100% ( apple 70 , dung 30...for example ) and the remainder lost 6%.
The head line is misleading and confusing !
I can add or subtract or multiply a few more irrelevant variables to that if it makes people happy.. But at the end it is meaningless!
Bundling profit and loss by "independent " entities into one number is bogus!
Industry made 100 dollars... Some lost total of 20 dollars ......Therefore total industry profit was 80??? U see this as a valid statement???...,Then the companies who profited had 100/80 of the profit.125% of the profit? .. Bogus. The number 80 is confusing at best !
Blackberry loss has nothing to do with apple profit if blackberry chooses to throw billion dollor toga parties every month ( for sake of example) ..and show a loss at the end of the year.
Also those who lost did not get a % of that profit . They lost . It would be correct to say that their loss was equal to 6% of the profits made in the industry..
As i said better way is to say appl and samdung got 100% ( apple 70 , dung 30...for example ) and the remainder lost 6%.
The head line is misleading and confusing !
Thank you for saving me the time and effort.
I don't understand why these smartphone manufacturers continue to hang in and lose money. It doesn't make any sense to just keep getting pounded quarter after quarter. I'm sure there must be other things they can do where they can be profitable. With Google's stupid, freely licensed Android OS, everyone and their mother thinks they can be some smartphone mogul building dirt-cheap smartphones out from their garages and basements. There's simply just too much of a glut of Android smartphones on the market and why can't these people see that there are no profits to be made by being a minor player. I thought the Android tablet market would also have shaken out the peanut-gallery manufacturers by now. It's like they don't know when to quit. Are they stupid or do they think they're going to get lucky? Why are there so many smartphone manufacturers? There's probably more smartphone manufacturers than microwave oven or toaster companies. It's just so absurd for them all to think they can take down the big boys that are flush with cash. Every other day on Engadget there's some new Android smartphone that's supposedly going to put Apple's iPhone business into ruins. A month later and the company is never heard from again.
Google's Android OS gave all these nobodies dreams of grandeur and the sooner it stops the better. Please, no more Android smartphones.
There’s a sucker born every minute and somebody has to take advantage of them.
Unfortunately there isn't a 'loss' column so losses are shown as negative profit. To show a industry wide profit total the positives and negatives are added to show 100% of profit. Omit the negatives from the equation and the number goes over 100%. Does it make sense? No but that's the method used.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgesant101521.html
or this: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/120182/Pavlovian-conditioning
Apple takes 61.3% of handset profits, Samsung takes 38.7%, all others lose or break-even
How's that for a headline?
Terrible. You first have to throw out most of Samsung's sales. That makes the numbers line up to more to where Apple has 80% of the profits. Better, yes?
Apple takes 61.3% of handset profits, Samsung takes 38.7%, all others lose or break-even
How's that for a headline?
A couple other posters have written comments that give me the argument I was looking for to back up the headline written the way I would have written it. That argument goes something like this:
Q: How much of the entire smartphone profits were made by Apple and Samsung?
A: All of the profits were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So no other company in the industry made any profits on smartphones?
A: That's correct. All of the profits that were made, were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So when speaking of smartphone profits, we need only speak of Apple and Samsung?
A: Yes, because they are the only companies that made smartphone profits and they made all of the profits.
Q: What's a mathematical way to express 'all of the profits?'
A: 100% of the profits.
Ah, I see more clearly now.
I'd like to thank the poster who took the argument for 106% to a logical extreme, with the notion that if the other market participants lost almost as much as Apple and Samsung made, the article title would have to have been phrased something like, "Apple & Samsung combine for 10,000,000% of handset profits..." That was a great maneuver on your part.
One final way of looking at the article headline. The headline speaks of profits. another word for profits is gains. When speaking of profits, or gains, you are speaking only to one side of the profit/loss scenario, and therefore it is illogical to include in a reference to profits any significance of losses. That's another whole conversation. So you could say, Apple and Samsung take 100% of profits, Blackberry, Nokia and Motorola share 100% of losses, while others break-even.
Not sure what problem that is supposed to solve.
Mercedes does offer low cost cars. You've heard of the A-Class and B-Class right?
They go much cheaper than the A-class. Mercedes is just the luxury arm branding of Daimler AG which makes Smart city cars.
Also saying Apple and Samsung are taking all 'the industry profits' is disingenuous. Google rakes it in. Not through the manufacturing - indeed it lost out here with Motorola, but through it's own android-feeds-personal-info-feeds-advertising-profit business model.
All this focus on Samsung as the prime copyist and competitor, in courts and in headlines, lets the main offender off the hook.
Stop using a number over 100%. You can't have more than 100% of something (unless you're NASA and your engine is rated at 1 million pounds of thrust and you push it to 104% of that rating) even if others are losing money.
Stop it.
The average sale price of a vehicle in the U.S. is $31,252
The Mercedes starts at $29,995.
I'm saying these models are for mass market and well within the range of the everyday normal consumer that buys a new car.
That's actually debatable because "average" is a very poor mathematical construct for any set of data with only one firm boundary.
Sell 99 cars for $25,000 then sell one Bugatti for $500,000. The average selling price for those 100 cars is $29,750 even though 99% of vehicles sold for less than the average.
But yes Mercedes does sell cars that many people can afford.
Two things:
1) I absolutely agree with you on the average math and I believe it does take this into account but I'd have to go back and check the source again. So, you're correct in this aspect.
2) Where the hell do you buy a Bugatti for $500,000? Almost all the ones I've looked at are a million plus.
It is called profit AND loss for a reason. Growing them together to form a pross is bad math on many levels.
Except there isn't a 'loss' column in financial reports so a negative number is used in the 'profit' column to indicate a loss.
There is no "Profit" column either.
"Earnings" is the bottom row of the P&L report. Positioned exactly like the "Grand Total" is on a typical invoice.
(Gross Revenue) - (Cost of Goods) - (Other Expenses) = Earnings
It can be negative but it is not called negative profit it would simply be called a loss.
Company A and Company B do not combine their P&L report.
A couple other posters have written comments that give me the argument I was looking for to back up the headline written the way I would have written it. That argument goes something like this:
Q: How much of the entire smartphone profits were made by Apple and Samsung?
A: All of the profits were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So no other company in the industry made any profits on smartphones?
A: That's correct. All of the profits that were made, were made by Apple and Samsung.
Q: So when speaking of smartphone profits, we need only speak of Apple and Samsung?
A: Yes, because they are the only companies that made smartphone profits and they made all of the profits.
Q: What's a mathematical way to express 'all of the profits?'
A: 100% of the profits.
Ah, I see more clearly now.
I'd like to thank the poster who took the argument for 106% to a logical extreme, with the notion that if the other market participants lost almost as much as Apple and Samsung made, the article title would have to have been phrased something like, "Apple & Samsung combine for 10,000,000% of handset profits..." That was a great maneuver on your part.
One final way of looking at the article headline. The headline speaks of profits. another word for profits is gains. When speaking of profits, or gains, you are speaking only to one side of the profit/loss scenario, and therefore it is illogical to include in a reference to profits any significance of losses. That's another whole conversation. So you could say, Apple and Samsung take 100% of profits, Blackberry, Nokia and Motorola share 100% of losses, while others break-even.
Right, it's physically impossible to take more than 100% of an object or collection.
In another context, however, it's perfectly acceptable to use percentages above 100%. For example Apple's stock price is up about 15000% since the mid 1990s.
That's why there's 3 different ways to figure out a average; mean, median, and mode. Many times the highest and/or lowest amount are omitted because of an example as yours.