AppleExposed

bradgonemad said:

anantksundaram said:

Such a piece of BS analysis from GS. Apple will sell, say conservatively, 240M devices in the coming year. Assuming 10% of them decide to continue with @TV+, that's 24M paying $60/year from Year 2 and on. If we assume -- again, conservatively -- a 40% profit margin on services, that's $576M in profit every year for a long time. At a PE ratio of 18x (about where it currently is), that's a ~$10B gain in value.

You can quarrel with my specific, quick-and-dirty assumptions and pick different ones  but under a wide range of such assumptions, the point is that there is no loss of value, to be sure.

Sheesh. Stupid analysts.

Your math doesn't account for the cost of bandwidth to deliver the streaming content, servers to store the content, maintenance, employees, etc etc. They don't get to keep every penny. This also goes for phones that they have to pay China to manufacturer, freight costs yada yada.

You sound like those people that go to the casino every week and lose a bunch of money but don't tell anyone then brag about the few times they actually win something. 

anantksundaram said:

Such a piece of BS analysis from GS. Apple will sell, say conservatively, 240M devices in the coming year. Assuming 10% of them decide to continue with @TV+, that's 24M paying $60/year from Year 2 and on. If we assume -- again, conservatively -- a 40% profit margin on services, that's $576M in profit every year for a long time. At a PE ratio of 18x (about where it currently is), that's a ~$10B gain in value.

You can quarrel with my specific, quick-and-dirty assumptions and pick different ones  but under a wide range of such assumptions, the point is that there is no loss of value, to be sure.

Sheesh. Stupid analysts.

macgui said:

muthuk_vanalingam said:

That alone indicates that this is a worthless article to read.

Obviously, you didn't read it, which explains the worthlessness of your post. That alone indicates your posts should be ignored.

pigybank said:

Anyone remember the iPhone 5C?  It was a lower priced colorful alternative.  It did not perform anywhere near the level of the XR.

I do. They looked great, but not what I wanted in a phone, so it was the 5s for me. Still, ad bad a 'failure' as haters wanted it to be, it's 'failure' numbers would have made just about every other phone manufacturer giddy to equal.

Other companies fail when they lose money. Apple fails when it makes money, just not as much as pundits think (ha!) they should have. AAPL go under any day now, if they keep that up.

coolfactor said:

AppleExposed said:

That "It's tough out there" ad is terrible. Am I missing something? Is it supposed to be ironic?

I suspect it's supposed to symbolize "what life throws at you", combined with industrial ("Pro"...?) surroundings. Might have some tie-ins to TV shows that they are working on, too. Who knows?

The soundtracks in both ads are different, edgy. They are definitely experimenting with different approaches.

foljs said:

AppleExposed said:

netrox said:

I am actually curious how much tougher the iPhone 11 is, especially with glass on back. Corning said it created a glass that's much more tougher so I guess it's that one.

Probably really tough as a lot of reviewers/media are intentionally ignoring the details.

That "It's tough out there" ad is terrible. Am I missing something? Is it supposed to be ironic?

What exactly didn't you understand?

Kuyangkoh said:

Ordered 11promax at 6am and pickup store on the 20th, but my son’s 11pro wont be available till Oct 16.....i think the 11pro are well picked than the max

neil anderson said:

larryjw said:

I don't need a horse's head in my bed [to] accept a deal I can't refuse. 

And do you also get a year free of Apple TV+?