OSNews

"Things Apple could learn from Palm. Part Three!"


Apple could learn to lose money and disappoint analysts like Palm?

Edited 2009-09-18 01:21 UTC

No, they already did that in the 90's.

thank you, Captain Obvious!

There are HTC and Samsung, so it won't die anytime soon. ( )

Edited 2009-09-18 09:05 UTC

All Palm WM phones were rebranded HTC, so basicly same as before. LG, Acer, Asus-Garmin, Samsung, HTC and Sony-Ericsson are still making. And according rumors atleast 3 makers have agreed on WM7 "chassis" specs, so they aren't going anywhere.

The Treo 800w (which I have) isn't made by HTC.

You are confusing the GAAP figures. Check your sources.

Thom, I think you need to check YOUR sources:

"For the current quarter, Palm said it expects non-GAAP revenue of $240 million to $270 million -- sharply lower than the $344.4 million expected by analysts. The company cited "timing and scale of expected product launches," as well "lower anticipated demand for legacy products."

In the first quarter, Palm said its loss widened to $161.1 million, or $1.17 a share. Excluding charges related to stock options and other items, the company said its net loss would have been $13.6 million, or 10 cents a share, for the recent period.

Analysts were expecting a net loss of 24 cents a share, according to Thomson Reuters."


"The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company lost $164.5 million, or $1.17 per share in its fiscal first quarter, ended Aug. 31. That's 293% wider than the $41.9 million loss the company recorded during the same time last year."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/palm-shares-slide-ahead-of-after-h...

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/17/technology/palm_earnings/index.htm

Edited 2009-09-18 01:22 UTC

Read that back again. "CURRENT quarter". Which is the SECOND quarter. This article is about the PREVIOUS quarter, the FIRST quarter. You are mixing up reported results with expected results.

The reported results are as detailed in the article. Expected results for the second quarter are what you are describing here. Don't mix them up.

Edited 2009-09-18 01:27 UTC

"This article is about the PREVIOUS quarter"


From your article,

"Palm has announced the financial results of the first quarter of the 2010 fiscal year

My comment references both previous and current... both of which were not positive.

The usual problem is that due to restrictions on revenue reporting, certain figures cannot be reported in the quarter that they were earned and must be deferred.

Thus, even if they brought in a huge amount of cash revenue during Q1, they cannot count it as revenue earned in their earnings statement until it's is "realizable".

Public company earnings statements suck. Please don't spout on about things you may not fully understand.

Ultimately - it seems Palm lost less than they predicted they would lose - which suggests that they've stopped the bleeding and are on the mend. That's always promising to investors.

It does not mean they have stopped the bleeding. It only means they are bleeding less than expected.

ok, fair enough

"The usual problem is that due to restrictions on revenue reporting, certain figures cannot be reported in the quarter that they were earned and must be deferred."

Yes, thats what GAAP earning are



"Public company earnings statements suck. Please don't spout on about things you may not fully understand."

Don't assume I don't understand... especially when I've offered the most well thought out feedback on this thread thus far.

The GAAP earnings are irrelevant if the company is still losing revenue even when the money is eventually realized as PALM has repeatedly demonstrated.


"Ultimately - it seems Palm lost less than they predicted they would lose - which suggests that they've stopped the bleeding and are on the mend."

Actually, no. Even that isn't correct. They couldn't beat their own previous quarterly projection or even the most liberal analyst's projections... and this even after the GAAP revenue was realized.



"That's always promising to investors."

It would be if in fact they had something promising to report.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10356044-266.html?tag=newsEditors...



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Palms-Q1-Better-Than-Expected-ibd-243...



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86c7f3dc-a3d5-11de-9fed-00144feabdc0.html

This is just a random selection of items from around the web, from reputable sources all stating that PAlm beat expectations - something you are denying. Are you arguing that everybody is wrong, and only you are right?

Come one, dude. Give it up already.

The stock did not do nearly as poorly as you would want to make it seem, however. So far it has nosedived to the same point it was at...a week ago. I'm not sure why you seem to keep insisting that all articles claim less than expected results.

Looking at Etrade's news aggregator now:

MarketWatch: "Shares of Palm Inc. fell Friday morning after the maker of wireless devices reported better-than-expected quarterly results but issued a disappointing forecast for the current period."

and Briefing.com: "Palm reported a first quarter loss after the close yesterday that was better than expected and provided mixed financial guidance. Separately, the company announced that it intends to offer approximately 16 million shares of common stock."

Diluting their stock certainly isn't going to help things.

It's clear that haus is nothing more than a practiced troll, however.

Yeah, that's pretty much the only conclusion possible here. First I thought I was crazy, that maybe I had misread the dozens of articles clearly stating Palm exceeded expectations.

In fact, the only website looking at these articles in the same way "haus" does is... MacDailyNews.

Which pretty much says it all.