Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 11, 2013 13:01:31 GMT -8
Who's to say Verizon didn't commit to buying a bunch of Samsung smartphone sales too? I mean, Verizon loves Android and all. Sheesh.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jul 11, 2013 13:09:48 GMT -8
iPad called the top!!!!! PANIC!!!!!!!!!!! oh wait WHAT? I forgot what " WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" means ;D LOL! Means I'm probably jinxing it, but it was a wheeeee-worthy day. ;D
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jul 11, 2013 13:16:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by osx10 on Jul 11, 2013 13:25:18 GMT -8
Our old friend Walter Piecyk tweeted that T-Mobile iPhone sales for q2 were 900k at the top of his range for quarter.
Is 900k on a second tier carrier like T-Mobile a good number?
|
|
|
Post by redinaustin on Jul 11, 2013 13:25:47 GMT -8
Why are we believing the Verizon info from one analyst in one publication without question? Other analysts have weighed in today in agreement, and looks like it is supported by Verizons financial statements in regards to purchase commitments for this year. Who knows, maybe the new cheap iPhone will coincide with Verizon launching new budget data plans, and virtually every plan it sells from September going forward will be a smartphone plan - and every feature phone sale it currently has will become a smartphone sale instead. Under that scenario I can see them purchasing tens of millions of cheap iPhones in advance in the September & December quarters to fulfil there commitments to Apple, even if they don't plan on using them all until 2014. Damn that would be good for Q4 & Q1 EPS if true. I've not seen them and I get links to almost everything apple related via twitter. Which analysts are in agreement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 13:28:13 GMT -8
Other analysts have weighed in today in agreement, and looks like it is supported by Verizons financial statements in regards to purchase commitments for this year. Who knows, maybe the new cheap iPhone will coincide with Verizon launching new budget data plans, and virtually every plan it sells from September going forward will be a smartphone plan - and every feature phone sale it currently has will become a smartphone sale instead. Under that scenario I can see them purchasing tens of millions of cheap iPhones in advance in the September & December quarters to fulfil there commitments to Apple, even if they don't plan on using them all until 2014. Damn that would be good for Q4 & Q1 EPS if true. I've not seen them and I get links to almost everything apple related via twitter. Which analysts are in agreement? Nomura. news.investors.com/technology/071113-663305-apple-verizon-seen-renegotiating-iphone-purchase-commitment.htm?ref=HPLNews
|
|
|
Post by redinaustin on Jul 11, 2013 13:42:33 GMT -8
Thanks for the link, burgess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 14:01:11 GMT -8
Our old friend Walter Piecyk tweeted that T-Mobile iPhone sales for q2 were 900k at the top of his range for quarter. Is 900k on a second tier carrier like T-Mobile a good number? It is very good for a carrier of their size (34 million customers), but it was the launch quarter for iPhone on T-Mobile, so maybe we shouldn't expect that every quarter. Edit: I guess I should qualify that with the fact that the 900k sales were to mostly new users, rather than iphone upgrades which the bigger carriers sales are mostly driven by.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 14:16:18 GMT -8
God, I hate MSFT software ... Then Excel quit and wouldn't let me reboot (said it couldn't find an application to open file with). WTF???Rebooted iMac. Retried to open Excel. Came up wIth error code and asked if I wanted to report it. YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I DO. Decided to reboot Mac again. This time Excel came up. Tried to open file. EIGHT YEARS OF DATA WAS UNREADABLE GARBAGE. Thankfully I have a backup from Time Capsule (last one from yesterday). Threw away offending file and opened backup. It opened successfully. Now to bring it up to date - BACKUP - then try to extend fiscal 2014 again. Time for you to learn how to use iWork which work on any iOS devices and iCloud. Would love a viable alternative to MSFT anything. iWork can't do ss the size I have built (multi page, linked, 208 columns X 150 rows). I tried iWork/Numbers about 2 1/2 years ago. I was disappointed with its capabilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 14:20:05 GMT -8
Our old friend Walter Piecyk tweeted that T-Mobile iPhone sales for q2 were 900k at the top of his range for quarter. Is 900k on a second tier carrier like T-Mobile a good number? This is first quarter they've had iPhone, and they only had it for half the quarter. Given T-Mobile's size, in relation to the other 3 US majors, I'd say these were good numbers.
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Jul 11, 2013 14:28:26 GMT -8
Later, Jonny Evans: Not gonna bother posting the link. Mav, Jonny Evans has been a pretty good advocate for Apple on a site that had been PC centric for a really long time. Having said that, I think he missed the boat with this piece and commented as such. "My thought is that you painted a picture that doesn't mesh with reality when you stripped the Microsoft tablets rather than added the iOS products to the equation. The analysts seem to want to rip apart the market for understanding. If I'm correct in my thinking it should be put together more fully which I'm not sure I'm capable of. Steve said where Apple is going upon his return when he addressed the developers during the conference. He stated that he hadn't lost any data in x years and could access his data from any device he signed in with. With that in mind the Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches are all computers and should be regarded as such. They clearly have work (and capacity) left to achieve to make this a reality but all the pieces are there including the support to retain those that sign on. Your view of the situation is considerably too narrow to be much help in assessing whatever the outcome may be. I continue to believe that they will own at least the next decade of computing because of the solidity, security and extensibility of OSX/iOS matched with their excellent hardware and support. When you consider the sum of the parts as a whole it's easier to see that a viable competitor has yet to appear on the scene. " Greg ripped him. I don't think he deserved it.
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Jul 11, 2013 14:44:14 GMT -8
Android customers turn over their phones faster because the Android hardware and software does. Too, VZ knows Android customers tax their infrastructure less (feature phones, remember), yet VZ still collects data usage fees. Did I read somewhere that sales staff are incentivized to sell Android handsets? What VZ gives up is the loyalty of their own customer. Frankly, I like ATT > VZ by a country mile. Go ask a few VZ sales reps what phones they have and if the VZ gave them to them or if they paid for them and if they have a choice. That alone could account for large numbers of Android phones if they were given/pushed by mgmt. (and explain the "pushing" of Android phones - people push what they have regardless of whether it's better or not). Waiting to hear back from my brother in Enterprise sales.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jul 11, 2013 15:12:06 GMT -8
Later, Jonny Evans: Not gonna bother posting the link. Mav, Jonny Evans has been a pretty good advocate for Apple on a site that had been PC centric for a really long time. Having said that, I think he missed the boat with this piece and commented as such. "My thought is that you painted a picture that doesn't mesh with reality when you stripped the Microsoft tablets rather than added the iOS products to the equation. The analysts seem to want to rip apart the market for understanding. If I'm correct in my thinking it should be put together more fully which I'm not sure I'm capable of. Steve said where Apple is going upon his return when he addressed the developers during the conference. He stated that he hadn't lost any data in x years and could access his data from any device he signed in with. With that in mind the Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches are all computers and should be regarded as such. They clearly have work (and capacity) left to achieve to make this a reality but all the pieces are there including the support to retain those that sign on. Your view of the situation is considerably too narrow to be much help in assessing whatever the outcome may be. I continue to believe that they will own at least the next decade of computing because of the solidity, security and extensibility of OSX/iOS matched with their excellent hardware and support. When you consider the sum of the parts as a whole it's easier to see that a viable competitor has yet to appear on the scene. " Greg ripped him. I don't think he deserved it. Evans has been a good Apple voice in the past. I think he really screwed up on this article though, and went to the tried and true technique for getting eye balls. A misleading sensationalist headline. I hope this is not a sign of things to come with him. Regarding those browser stats, that same source would have you believe that Nokia was on top at the end of last year. Something is wrong with the methodology and conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 15:29:33 GMT -8
I think you are overestimating the importance of a CM carrier deal. A iPhone fully compatible with china mobiles network is more important than a carrier deal with them. Why? Because the majority of Chinese smartphones are sold unsubsidised. People buy a phone and pop in a SIM card for the carrier of their choice. I'm not saying a carrier deal wouldn't be great for Apple, but I'm saying the possible alternative isn't that bad, especially if apple releases a new phone that falls in the range Chinese consumers are used to paying for mid to high end unsubsidised handsets. Burgess, you just touched on something I hadn't considered before, and that is that the majority of handset buyers in China buy unsubsidized. Ergo, no long term contracts, just pay as you go and prepaid users. All Apple needs to get to CM customers are handsets compatible with CM's bastard protocol. hmmm, Qualcom world chip? Let me address this love affair with the "cheap/low priced" iPhone from another direction, using FQ2/2013 results as backstop. During FQ2/2013 Apple sold 37,430,000 iPhones with an ASP of $613. ASP has been in slow decline for quite sometime, so assuming an ASP of $600 for FQ3/2013 should not be unreasonable. iPhone has been generating 50+% Gross Margins for a very long time. At 50% iPhone generated US$11,477,500,000 in Gross Margin during FQ2/2013. Now, let's look at what Apple would have to do to match those Gross Margin $s, assuming lower ASPs. Let's also assume that Apple successfully reduced average COGS by 15% ($255 vs $300). If Apple could do that, then I'd have ask why they haven't.A reduction in ASP to US$500 would require a 25% increase in unit sales volume to beak even with current Gross Margin dollars, and accomplish nothing more than achieving greater market share. Stated another way, Apple would have to sell an additional 9,357,000 units just to break even on current Gross Margin. Does anybody really think WS will look more favorably on AAPL, if Apple has to sell 25% more units just to break even? MARKET SHARE, especially the share you are buying, is not the holy grail, MARKET SHARE with profits is, just ask the market share leader (Samsung) that makes about half as much profit as Apple for each handset produced, and whose underbelly is under attack by manufacturers selling for even less. One must also keep in mind that Samsung handsets are offered by nearly twice as many carriers as is Apple's iPhone. If Apple was concerned about market share over gross margins, it wouldn't have to produce a lower cost iPhone, all it would have to do is sign more carriers. Gee, they haven't, what does that tell you? There isn't going to be a specific lower cost iPhone. This does not mean that Apple won't lower ASP. That's a different issue. Still, I do not see Apple doing that either. Apple's DNA is to raise the value proposition to protect the top line. iOS 7Apple products get better, not cheaper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 15:35:48 GMT -8
Greg ripped him. I don't think he deserved it. I ripped him because, as seemingly detailed as his "analysis" was, it was shallow. Supporting a flawed thesis using half the story is inexcusable. Make or Break my ass.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 11, 2013 15:48:01 GMT -8
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why exactly is today a WHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee day? Not that I don't like to hear Her Majesty let our a full-throated Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee whenever possible, but why today?
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jul 11, 2013 16:29:18 GMT -8
I think you are overestimating the importance of a CM carrier deal. A iPhone fully compatible with china mobiles network is more important than a carrier deal with them. Why? Because the majority of Chinese smartphones are sold unsubsidised. People buy a phone and pop in a SIM card for the carrier of their choice. I'm not saying a carrier deal wouldn't be great for Apple, but I'm saying the possible alternative isn't that bad, especially if apple releases a new phone that falls in the range Chinese consumers are used to paying for mid to high end unsubsidised handsets. Burgess, you just touched on something I hadn't considered before, and that is that the majority of handset buyers in China buy unsubsidized. Ergo, no long term contracts, just pay as you go and prepaid users. All Apple needs to get to CM customers are handsets compatible with CM's bastard protocol. hmmm, Qualcom world chip? Let me address this love affair with the "cheap/low priced" iPhone from another direction, using FQ2/2013 results as backstop. During FQ2/2013 Apple sold 37,430,000 iPhones with an ASP of $613. ASP has been in slow decline for quite sometime, so assuming an ASP of $600 for FQ3/2013 should not be unreasonable. iPhone has been generating 50+% Gross Margins for a very long time. At 50% iPhone generated US$11,477,500,000 in Gross Margin during FQ2/2013. Now, let's look at what Apple would have to do to match those Gross Margin $s, assuming lower ASPs. Let's also assume that Apple successfully reduced average COGS by 15% ($255 vs $300). If Apple could do that, then I'd have ask why they haven't.A reduction in ASP to US$500 would require a 25% increase in unit sales volume to beak even with current Gross Margin dollars, and accomplish nothing more than achieving greater market share. Stated another way, Apple would have to sell an additional 9,357,000 units just to break even on current Gross Margin. Does anybody really think WS will look more favorably on AAPL, if Apple has to sell 25% more units just to break even? MARKET SHARE, especially the share you are buying, is not the holy grail, MARKET SHARE with profits is, just ask the market share leader (Samsung) that makes about half as much profit as Apple for each handset produced, and whose underbelly is under attack by manufacturers selling for even less. One must also keep in mind that Samsung handsets are offered by nearly twice as many carriers as is Apple's iPhone. If Apple was concerned about market share over gross margins, it wouldn't have to produce a lower cost iPhone, all it would have to do is sign more carriers. Gee, they haven't, what does that tell you? There isn't going to be a specific lower cost iPhone. This does not mean that Apple won't lower ASP. That's a different issue. Still, I do not see Apple doing that either. Apple's DNA is to raise the value proposition to protect the top line. iOS 7Apple products get better, not cheaper. See iPad Mini. It's a cheaper iPad, although I think it's a better product as well. Was the iPad Mini a bad decision? It spurred a huge growth in iPad sales. Once the full size iPad gets a proper refresh (big reduction in weight and bezel) there will be two excellent iPad products at different prices that target different consumers. This is a good thing. Why should the iPhone be any different?iPod/iPod Mini/iPod Shuffle. Macbook Pro/Macbook/Macbook Air. The list goes on. There is a difference between doing what Samsung does making everything under the sun and making two or three different offerings of a product line to target different consumers, be it price or other factors. Another thing - cheaper phones equal more unit sales. More unit sales equal fewer unit sales to competitors. More unit sales equal greater adoption of iOS, and greater spending in iTunes and the App Store, and greater future success for future endeavours (fingerprint/mobile payments?). Market share is not the be all and end all, but it is a factor. If Apple stays only at the very high end, they will cede a lot of their power in the industry. Take a look at Macs a few years ago. They were the best computers around but their market share was tiny, and Apple was not doing particularly well. One final thing. I hate Samsung just like you do. But let's call a spade a spade. Apple is expected to report about $7B in profit this quarter. Samsung has announced an estimated $8.3B. Before you ridicule Samsung's strategy, look at the numbers starting at you and look at the trend of the past few quarters. It wasn't long ago that Samsung was making a small fraction of Apple's profits - now they're ahead (unless there's a huge beat). That is a huge concern in my book, and a sign that Apple's current strategy is not perfect. They need to expand their iPhone portfolio, both to take away sales from Samsung as well as boost their own revenue and profit growth, and maintain or increase a steady market share. You can continue to believe that all Samsung has done is chase market share without caring about profit, but the fact is they have outearned Apple in the past quarter. Now unless you believe this profit comes from dishwashers and refrigerators as opposed to smartphones, something's gotta give.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 17:30:40 GMT -8
See iPad Mini. It's a cheaper iPad, although I think it's a better product as well. Was the iPad Mini a bad decision? It spurred a huge growth in iPad sales. Once the full size iPad gets a proper refresh (big reduction in weight and bezel) there will be two excellent iPad products at different prices that target different consumers. This is a good thing. Why should the iPhone be any different?I see where you are coming from but all the products you refer carried a reduction in price as a result of reduction in size with limited impact to the job the product was hired for. Size reductions in the iPod had no impact on its ability to play music, to the contrary, improvements in memory technology increased user libraries while reducing battery load. I'm not aware of anyone shipping a handset smaller than 3.5". A useable touch interface has minimum screen requirements, so an iPad mini, with a 7.9" screen easily passes that test. Those iPod/iPad size reductions reduced COGS, thereby absorbing some of the price reductions. That would not be true of a smaller iPhone. Smaller in that case makes it unusable, forcing a reduction in capability to make price reductions instead. See argument necessary increase in sales volume to offset lost Gross Margins. Apple did not develop a laptop to compete (on price) in the now dead 'net book segment. Instead, Apple created a new product category that sold for nearly double the cost of a NetBook. Apple's only change to the physical size of the iPhone has been to it make bigger, not cheaper. Lowering of the iPhone's price has been accomplished by continuing to offer previous models at lesser price points. This has proven quite successful, and is made possible because production equipment has been fully amortized and older generation components don't cost as much as they originally did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 17:45:34 GMT -8
But let's call a spade a spade. Apple is expected to report about $7B in profit this quarter. Samsung has announced an estimated $8.3B.Yes, let's do. Samsung manufactures: Memory (for itself and others - including Apple) Screens (for itself and others - including Apple) Chips (for itself and others - including Apple) Batteries (for itself and others - including Apple) Televisions Handsets Tablets Computers Apple manufactures: Handsets Tablets Computers Apple Buys: Memory (mostly from Samsung) Screens (mostly from Samsung) Chips (mostly from Samsung) Batteries (mostly from Samsung) So a large portion of Samsung's profitability is derived from selling to Apple. I'm surprised that Samsung is only doing 18% better than Apple. Oh I forgot to add, Samsung missed consensus and its stock is now trading at year ago prices.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 11, 2013 17:46:09 GMT -8
Jonny jumped the shark. He knew what he was doing.
Life's too short to follow inconsistent-at-best journalists. That's just me.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Jul 11, 2013 17:52:19 GMT -8
But let's call a spade a spade. Apple is expected to report about $7B in profit this quarter. Samsung has announced an estimated $8.3B.Yes, let's do. Samsung manufactures: Memory (for itself and others - including Apple) Screens (for itself and others - including Apple) Chips (for itself and others - including Apple) Batteries (for itself and others - including Apple) Televisions Handsets Tablets Computers Apple manufactures: Handsets Tablets Computers Apple Buys: Memory (mostly from Samsung) Screens (mostly from Samsung) Chips (mostly from Samsung) Batteries (mostly from Samsung) So a large portion of Samsung's profitability is derived from selling to Apple. I'm surprised that Samsung is only doing 18% better than Apple. Oh I forgot to add, Samsung missed consensus and its stock is now trading at year ago prices. Let me get this straight. After continuously brushing Samsung off as earning a fraction of what Apple does, you're now surprised they're only making a bit more than them? How does that make any sense? If you don't think Samsung's profit and margin growth is fuelled in large part by the success of their flagship smartphones, then you have some serious blinders on. The correlation is crystal clear. If there's anything we should have learned these last 9 months, it's that objectivity is important, and arrogance is foolish.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 11, 2013 18:19:14 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 18:28:03 GMT -8
Yes, let's do. Samsung manufactures: Memory (for itself and others - including Apple) Screens (for itself and others - including Apple) Chips (for itself and others - including Apple) Batteries (for itself and others - including Apple) Televisions Handsets Tablets Computers Apple manufactures: Handsets Tablets Computers Apple Buys: Memory (mostly from Samsung) Screens (mostly from Samsung) Chips (mostly from Samsung) Batteries (mostly from Samsung) So a large portion of Samsung's profitability is derived from selling to Apple. I'm surprised that Samsung is only doing 18% better than Apple. Oh I forgot to add, Samsung missed consensus and its stock is now trading at year ago prices. Let me get this straight. After continuously brushing Samsung off as earning a fraction of what Apple does, you're now surprised they're only making a bit more than them? How does that make any sense? If you don't think Samsung's profit and margin growth is fuelled in large part by the success of their flagship smartphones, then you have some serious blinders on. The correlation is crystal clear. What I'm saying (apparently not very well) is that holding Samsung's profit up as a reason for a less expensive iPhone isn't backed up by a comparison of like revenue streams, ie., what would Samsung's profit look like (in comparison to Apple's) if you deducted profit from memory, screens, chips and batteries. I think Samsung's smartphone profits are enhanced by the fact that Samsung buys memory, screens, chips and batteries from itself (which is a smart way to make its foundries more profitable). Without that interdepartmental synergy Samsung is a study in me too profitability. Once again, I forgot to point out that Samsung missed consensus, a consensus that been reduced in the few weeks before it reported. WS doubts Samsung's profit and margin growth" as evidenced by the sharp decline in Samsung's stock just before and since reporting earnings and providing guidance. Samsung's weak handset performance led to several articles stating that the high end handset market is now saturated (no more growth). Those same articles failed to point out that Samsung's low end handset business has been seriously impaired by ZTE and HUAWEI (Chinese manufacturers of even cheaper handsets). Samsung is not the competition on the low end, it is no name Chinese manufacturers selling to people that will never buy an iPhone. WS believes Samsung is in trouble (look at how the stock has traded for the last 20 sessions). There was an article just yesterday about what it will mean to Samsung if they have to replace Apple as a customer. Bottom line is that there are no replacements for Apple's business. I hope this clarifies my reasoning behind no "less expensive" iPhones, and that I did it courteously (as is possible for me anyway).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 19:18:49 GMT -8
Price cuts like that typically signal discontinuance is right around the corner. I can remember Gates being admired for structuring MSFT into competing divisions. It was believed that interdepartmental competition spurred innovation, and may have with proper management. Ballmer was not/is not the right manager of that environment. Unfortunately for MSFT he is just now beginning to sense his weaknesses, and address them. The reorganization email he sent out to all employees sounded more like an attempt to boost morale, than it was an explanation of what is happening. I would look for a major reduction in workforce in the next 6 months, as fiefdoms are consolidated and/or eliminated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 19:32:52 GMT -8
I think you are overestimating the importance of a CM carrier deal. A iPhone fully compatible with china mobiles network is more important than a carrier deal with them. Why? Because the majority of Chinese smartphones are sold unsubsidised. People buy a phone and pop in a SIM card for the carrier of their choice. I'm not saying a carrier deal wouldn't be great for Apple, but I'm saying the possible alternative isn't that bad, especially if apple releases a new phone that falls in the range Chinese consumers are used to paying for mid to high end unsubsidised handsets. Burgess, you just touched on something I hadn't considered before, and that is that the majority of handset buyers in China buy unsubsidized. Ergo, no long term contracts, just pay as you go and prepaid users. All Apple needs to get to CM customers are handsets compatible with CM's bastard protocol. hmmm, Qualcom world chip? Let me address this love affair with the "cheap/low priced" iPhone from another direction, using FQ2/2013 results as backstop. During FQ2/2013 Apple sold 37,430,000 iPhones with an ASP of $613. ASP has been in slow decline for quite sometime, so assuming an ASP of $600 for FQ3/2013 should not be unreasonable. iPhone has been generating 50+% Gross Margins for a very long time. At 50% iPhone generated US$11,477,500,000 in Gross Margin during FQ2/2013. Now, let's look at what Apple would have to do to match those Gross Margin $s, assuming lower ASPs. Let's also assume that Apple successfully reduced average COGS by 15% ($255 vs $300). If Apple could do that, then I'd have ask why they haven't.A reduction in ASP to US$500 would require a 25% increase in unit sales volume to beak even with current Gross Margin dollars, and accomplish nothing more than achieving greater market share. Stated another way, Apple would have to sell an additional 9,357,000 units just to break even on current Gross Margin. Does anybody really think WS will look more favorably on AAPL, if Apple has to sell 25% more units just to break even? MARKET SHARE, especially the share you are buying, is not the holy grail, MARKET SHARE with profits is, just ask the market share leader (Samsung) that makes about half as much profit as Apple for each handset produced, and whose underbelly is under attack by manufacturers selling for even less. One must also keep in mind that Samsung handsets are offered by nearly twice as many carriers as is Apple's iPhone. If Apple was concerned about market share over gross margins, it wouldn't have to produce a lower cost iPhone, all it would have to do is sign more carriers. Gee, they haven't, what does that tell you? There isn't going to be a specific lower cost iPhone. This does not mean that Apple won't lower ASP. That's a different issue. Still, I do not see Apple doing that either. Apple's DNA is to raise the value proposition to protect the top line. iOS 7Apple products get better, not cheaper. Thanks for the reply Greg. There's no way to know until/if a new mid tier iPhone is released, but I'm of the opinion that the new lower cost iPhone would generate mostly extra incremental sales, and only a low amount of cannibalisation. My reasoning: Most who are planning on buying an iPhone 5S are not going to buy a phone with similar specs to an iPhone 4S (they likely already own a 4S actually if they are on the 2 year upgrade cycle). A new mid priced iPhone is going to be for people who otherwise can’t afford to buy the latest premium iPhone and for whatever reason don’t want to buy the current iPhone mid priced option (the iPhone 4). I believe the new mid priced iPhone would share all the components of the recently released $229 iPod touch (A5, 4" retina, lightning connected, FaceTime camera) and simply add the cellular components & cheap rear camera parts, and cheaper plastic shell. Those extra components are not going to cost more than $40, so pricing the phone $400 or below with high margins will be a piece of cake. Take the following very hypothetical example: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2014 iPhone sales (presuming no new entry level iPhone) iPhone 4S sells 40 million units at $220 GM per device = $8.8 billion iPhone 5 sells 40 million units at $275 GM per device = $11 billion iPhone 5S sells 90 million units at $300 GM per device = $27 billion Total: 170 million units & $46.8 billion operating profit ($275 per phone) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2014 iPhone sales (New mid price iPhone introduced replaces iPhone 4S) New mid price phone sells 100 million units at $200 GM per device = $20 billion iPhone 5 sells 30 million units at $275 GM per device = $8.25 billion iPhone 5S sells 80 million units at $300 GM per device = $24 billion Total: 220 million units & $52.25 billion operating profit ($238 per phone) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in that hypothetical apple would sell 60 million extra mid priced phones due to “newness†& cheaper price (but cheaper build cost maintains margin), and it cannibalises 20 million sales of the 2 higher priced iPhone options. Therefore we have 40 million incremental unit sales, and incremental operating profit of $5.45 billion dollars (or incremental EPS of about $4 a share). I will gladly take an average margin drop from $275 per phone to $238 per phone if it means an increase of $5.5 billion in overall total operating profit, and also an extra 40 million users entering the apple ecosystem and driving increased iTunes & accessory profits and extra future device purchases. Like Tuffett said, this is identical to my thinking for why I thought Apple would release the iPad Mini. Which was based on the previous examples of the iPod mini/nano vs classic iPod, the Mac mini vs the iMac, the MacBook/Air vs the MacBook Pro, iLife apps vs Pro apps. My own entry into the apple ecosystem was a 1st generation iPod nano, followed quickly by the original Mac Mini. At the time I was at University and didn't have enough money to spend on a full size iPod or an iMac (I didn't earn much working part time as a projectionist) and if it wasn't for the introduction of those cheap entry level options I might not have ended up where I am today with a dozen apple devices made up of macs, iPhones, iPads, AppleTVs & iPods littered around our home, and the hundreds of items purchased on them from the App & Media stores (although my wife would appreciate the reduction in clutter).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 19:34:09 GMT -8
Delete
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 11, 2013 19:34:31 GMT -8
Isn't that the Zune? No, wait....that device was smaller.... You know, if something like this can't find a market in its first eight months, its not likely to do so afterwards. Whatever "good" attributes it had will be engineered into the competitors' product lines...
|
|
|
Post by Nevyn on Jul 11, 2013 19:51:39 GMT -8
Time for you to learn how to use iWork which work on any iOS devices and iCloud. Would love a viable alternative to MSFT anything. iWork can't do ss the size I have built (multi page, linked, 208 columns X 150 rows). I tried iWork/Numbers about 2 1/2 years ago. I was disappointed with its capabilities. Are you using excel 2011? If you want to run Office, you need Windows. Office on a Mac runs like iTunes on a PC.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 11, 2013 19:52:04 GMT -8
Puts really flattened out but that 430 call wall will be tough to climb tomorrow....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 20:16:23 GMT -8
Would love a viable alternative to MSFT anything. iWork can't do ss the size I have built (multi page, linked, 208 columns X 150 rows). I tried iWork/Numbers about 2 1/2 years ago. I was disappointed with its capabilities. Are you using excel 2011? If you want to run Office, you need Windows. Office on a Mac runs like iTunes on a PC. Oh, that is complete B.S. I've NEVER had a problem with it, and I use VB, pivot tables, you name it. I'm tired of reading this opinion, starting from Adam Thompson who made similar claims. It's just plain wrong. And for the record, I use Office 10 for the PC as well. I prefer Office 11 on the Mac, since they brought back VBA on it.
|
|