sacto joe

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. 

joechilds said:

Great piece, very well said. 

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

thrang said:

Phil and Craig occasionally interject a little more unique personality into their delivery, and with some  unscripted asides - but mostly, its sounds very repetitive. 

This comes from it being a rehearsed event by non-professional-speakers. They depend on repetition and practice to come off as non-panicked (remember panic being the normal response for most when public speaking). Those who do it more get better at it. Craig is awesome at it now and can ad lib, but he wasn't in the beginning. Also natural charisma helps a speaker, but few office workers are hired for charisma. You would imagine that CEOs are all natural public speakers, but that isn't the case either, their primary skills are running successful companies. Not many have to get under a spotlight. 

I used to be in community theater and know how bad nerves are, so my hat's off to them.

We all take our hats off to them. We know how hard it is. We understand the difficulties for them.

You missed the point. The same criticisms are aimed at professional speakers too (politicians for example when in presentation mode).

Rehearsal isn't the problem. The script, structure and delivery are the problem.

avon b7 said:

StrangeDays said:

“if it weren't for Apple selling price-insensitive early adopters on its most advanced tech each year, it simply wouldn't be possible for the company to keep reintroducing the same features a couple years later a prices anyone can afford.”

...this is exactly right. 

It is in fact completely wrong from a technology perspective.

How do you think Qualcomm/Sony etc get by in bringing advanced technology to market?

All Apple would need to do is licence its technology to others and it wouldn't need price insensitive early adopters.

The difference is that it chooses not to. That's fine and that is where the comment does reflect reality - but that happens industry wide anyway. 

On top of that both Huawei and Samsung have brought advanced technologies to market with those infamously low ASPs. How did they manage to pull that one off? Volume. For example the Kirin 990 5G isn't even two weeks old but its sub brand (HONOR) has already announced that its (price sensitive) buyers will be getting it, just weeks after the Mate 30 series launches.