Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 22:09 UTC
Apple "Apple Inc reported quarterly revenue that slightly missed Wall Street expectations as sales of its flagship iPhone came in below target, sending its shares down more than 4 percent. The world's largest technology company shipped 47.8 million iPhones, lower than the roughly 50 million that Wall Street analysts had predicted. Sales of the iPad came in at 22.9 million in the fiscal first quarter, about in line with forecasts." I'll leave the financials to the experts, but one thing that stood out to me: Apple sold 4.2 million Macs, almost a million below expectations. How much of a future does desktop computing have at Apple? Update: The NYT/Reuters changed the title during the night. Fixed it.
Order by: Score:
Look closer
by bowkota on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 22:29 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

New where available for 2 out of the 3 months in the quarter and even then severely constrained.
This was a 13week quarter in comparison to a 14 week quarter a year ago.

I'm also guessing that most professionals are holding off for that "rumoured" Mac Pro refresh.

I think desktop computing still has some way to go at Apple.

As for the iPhones; both 5 and 4 were constrained, so I guess in that respect, yes it was disappointing.

Edited 2013-01-23 22:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Look closer
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Jan 2013 01:49 UTC in reply to "Look closer"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No they weren't. Nexus 4 is constrained, iPhone5 is not.
They sold ~15 million more iOS devices but made only 40mil more profit compared to last year.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Look closer
by mkone on Thu 24th Jan 2013 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Look closer"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

No they weren't. Nexus 4 is constrained, iPhone5 is not.
They sold ~15 million more iOS devices but made only 40mil more profit compared to last year.


They said they were constrained. Do you think they were lying?

Secondly, Q1 2013 was one week shorter than Q1 2012. Like for like, they might have been able to push up the profit number to $14bn.

Yes, margins are down. They are selling a larger number of lower margin products. And Q1 2012 was particularly good, perhaps anomalously so. Their margin are nearer to their usual level in Q1 2013 (Gross margin was 38.5% for Q1 2011, and 40.9% for Q1 2010). Q1 2012 gross margin was anomalously high at 44.7%, and that was not likely to be repeated.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Look closer
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Jan 2013 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Look closer"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They were constrained on iPhone5(specifically only one device) for a quarter of the quarter. It's not like they were constrained for the actual "primary gifting season".

Reply Score: 3

RE: Look closer
by Macrat on Thu 24th Jan 2013 02:15 UTC in reply to "Look closer"
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

I'm also guessing that most professionals are holding off for that "rumoured" Mac Pro refresh.


When the CEO says a new Mac Pro is going to be released, it's not a rumor.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Look closer
by tylerdurden on Thu 24th Jan 2013 20:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Look closer"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Yeah because no CEO ever has either been wrong, said something false, or blown smoke out their ass... ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Ridiculous expectations
by mkone on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 22:49 UTC
mkone
Member since:
2006-03-14

Apple just posted revenue of $54bn, 8bn higher than they achieved in the year ago quarter (in a reporting period that was one week shorter). If you correct for that, they would have had between $57 and 58bn revenue. They also reported profits of $13bn. Marginally more than in that quarter.

And people are disappointed!

They also sold more iPhones than they have ever in a single quarter. To put things in perspective, they sold nearly 50m iPhone, and just 5m iPhones less than they managed through the whole of 2011. Their iPhone revenue was $30bn.

The revenue for the rest of their products is also nearly as much as the first quarter revenue in 2011. (It was $27bn then.)

Apple was never going to maintain the kind of growth that some people expected. It's just not possible.

By the way, just did the calculations. Until the year ending 1 February 2012, Dell made total profits of $27bn. Apple made half that in a single quarter. They obviously know what they are doing, analysts be damned!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ridiculous expectations
by Phloptical on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:17 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous expectations"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

God forbid the "analysts" on Wall Street do not see 20% growth quarter after quarter. Stocks are such a scam. You'd be better off gambling your money in a casino and putting the rest in a bank.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Ridiculous expectations
by galvanash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous expectations"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I you invested $100 in Apple in July 2002 your stocks were worth $700,000 dollars in July of 2012...

A few months later their stock price went all the way to $700 a share (from aobut $500). Now it is back down to $514 (its actually trading slightly up so far today surprisingly).

In other words ANY money you put into Apple during the 10 year period between 2002 and 2012 would yeilded a significant net gain, even though it lost a full 20% of its value since around Sept...

Even if you just invested in the S&P 500, you would still see about a 20% gain over that same time period...

The point is no, you can't get that kind of reliable return on investment in a Casino. And the risk calculation is completely different - all you have in a Casino is random chance, and it is carefully balanced to give the house an advantage. Always.

In the stock market, it is the other way around. Odds are you make money over the long haul. It is the short haul that presents a danger... And you actually get to use your brain and pick where you want to put your money.

Im not promoting Apple stock or anything. Just saying yeah, some people lose money in the stock market - but most people actually don't. if you avoid doing stupid things like day trading and what not and don't try and be too aggressive it historically has ALWAYS been a much better place to put money than under your mattress...

It is definitely a better place to put money than on a roulette wheel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ridiculous expectations
by galvanash on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous expectations"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Just noticed... That should be $7,000, not $700,000... The market has been good to Apple, but not THAT good.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Ridiculous expectations
by Phloptical on Sat 26th Jan 2013 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous expectations"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I you invested $100 in Apple in July 2002 your stocks were worth $700,000 dollars in July of 2012...

A few months later their stock price went all the way to $700 a share (from aobut $500). Now it is back down to $514 (its actually trading slightly up so far today surprisingly).

In other words ANY money you put into Apple during the 10 year period between 2002 and 2012 would yeilded a significant net gain, even though it lost a full 20% of its value since around Sept...

Even if you just invested in the S&P 500, you would still see about a 20% gain over that same time period...

The point is no, you can't get that kind of reliable return on investment in a Casino. And the risk calculation is completely different - all you have in a Casino is random chance, and it is carefully balanced to give the house an advantage. Always.

In the stock market, it is the other way around. Odds are you make money over the long haul. It is the short haul that presents a danger... And you actually get to use your brain and pick where you want to put your money.

Im not promoting Apple stock or anything. Just saying yeah, some people lose money in the stock market - but most people actually don't. if you avoid doing stupid things like day trading and what not and don't try and be too aggressive it historically has ALWAYS been a much better place to put money than under your mattress...

It is definitely a better place to put money than on a roulette wheel.


And where was Apple's stock before it released the ipod? How many "hot tips" from 1997 to 2001 are still making those gains today?
But, I digress, let's use your Roulette anecdote. Betting the wheel is essentially the same thing as betting in wall street, albeit the rate of return over time is much shorter. In roulette, you need a bankroll of probably a couple thousand, and a sound betting strategy, to guide you over the gains and losses over the course of a night. In stocks, guess what......it's the same thing. You need a similar amount of cash to make it worth your while. A long term investment strategy made up with conservative stocks to balance your betting on the "next big thing" (which 99% of the time, is just a pump and dump scheme by brokers) And you ride that out over time, changing your bets on this stock or that fund and pray you get the ever elusive 8% return (that the investment firms love to dangle in front of you) or at the very least match the performance of the S&P.
So, trust me.....don't believe the hype. Wall Street is nothing more than legalized gambling.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Ridiculous expectations
by galvanash on Mon 28th Jan 2013 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous expectations"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

And where was Apple's stock before it released the ipod? How many "hot tips" from 1997 to 2001 are still making those gains today?


I wasn't making a case for Apple stock. If you bought it 10 years ago you were lucky - I completely concede that. I was simply illustrating that the hit the stock has taken over the last 6 months isn't as bad as many people imply if you were a long term investor.

But, I digress, let's use your Roulette anecdote. Betting the wheel is essentially the same thing as betting in wall street, albeit the rate of return over time is much shorter.


No its not. Because unlike roulette wall street isn't governed purely by chance. Roulette has a mathematically provable rate of return of -2.7% - there is not "betting strategy" that can change that - it is simple math. You can certainly get lucky, but the longer you play the closer to -2.7% you will get.

It is also different because historical performance has no statistical relation to future results. Again, a working roulette wheel might come up black 1000 times in a row - the odds of it coming up red on the next roll are still 50/50...

Markets don't work that way - they have history and history IS relevant, at least on timescales that most people are concerned with...

In roulette, you need a bankroll of probably a couple thousand, and a sound betting strategy, to guide you over the gains and losses over the course of a night. In stocks, guess what......it's the same thing.


Please describe a "sound betting strategy" in a game of pure chance... There is no such thing...

A long term investment strategy made up with conservative stocks to balance your betting on the "next big thing" (which 99% of the time, is just a pump and dump scheme by brokers) And you ride that out over time, changing your bets on this stock or that fund and pray you get the ever elusive 8% return (that the investment firms love to dangle in front of you) or at the very least match the performance of the S&P.
So, trust me.....don't believe the hype. Wall Street is nothing more than legalized gambling.


Changing your bets and betting on the next big thing is how you lose money on wall street... The people that do that, those are the people funding the smart investors rather common 8% return (actually more like 10%).

Read this:

http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2008/12/16/how-much-does-the-stoc...

Its not rocket science. Invest in the S&P 500 or a decent fund with a good history... Unlike roulette, math is on your side as long as your patient. Yes, you can stil lose your ass - but the odds are actually in your favor...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous expectations
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Jan 2013 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous expectations"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Stocks are a scam, for people that don't understand what drives the price of said stocks.

Investments aren't made on what you currently do, investments are made on what you might do.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ridiculous expectations
by galvanash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:24 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous expectations"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

But that is what stock analyst do - it is their function...

They set expectations. For a poorly performing company that are showing signs of life, they declare a benchmark that must be met - and when the company meets meets or exceeds the benchmark low and behold their share price climbs!

Likewise, for a well performing company, they declare even higher benchmarks, progressively to the point of not being able to meet them... And when the company fails to meet the benchmark low and behold their share price tanks (edit - I should say dip, tank is too strong a word)!

Thats sounds awfully cynical, but its the truth. The benchmark isnt arbitrary, it is based on past performance and current stock price and valuation.

The point is keep investors grounded in reality. A company like Apple, who has performed exceptionally for a very long time now, doesn't necessarily deserve EVEN MORE INVESTMENT. At some point the upside is no longer there. You can't grow forever. It doesn't matter that they are still performing well - the point is they are no longer growing fast enough to maintain their current trajectory.

It would be dishonest to investors looking for a place to put their money to declare how wonderful Apple is doing when they are siting on so much f*cking money... In order for it to be advantageous for an investor to buy Apple stock right now, they have to significantly exceed past performance - prove that they are still producing revenue at a rate that makes their stock price realistic.

The point isn't purely business performance - it is really about the stock price. Apple's doing just fine - they have tons and tons of cash. They can afford to lose some valuation. What the market can't afford is investors being sucked into throwing money at a company whose upside is rapidly reaching a pointing of equilibrium... So analyst projections help to add some levity to the equation.

People complained about Apple being overvalued in the past... Well, now the market is essentially agreeing with them (at least a little bit). The beast does manage to correct itself from time to time ;)

Edited 2013-01-23 23:29 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Ridiculous expectations
by ndrw on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:03 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous expectations"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

Predicting is the *main* function of financial markets. Investors put their money at work because they expect earnings, so when they are inaccurate in their predictions there must be a correction.

This is a good mechanism. When working correctly, it transfers resources to places that use them most effectively (like Apple a couple of years ago). It also helps to absorb shocks - people expect e.g. oil to run out so its prices are growing *now*, encouraging investment and saving, and discouraging consumption.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ridiculous expectations
by robojerk on Thu 24th Jan 2013 04:48 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous expectations"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Investors are disappointed because higher number were predicted.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous expectations
by Deviate_X on Thu 24th Jan 2013 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous expectations"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Investors are disappointed because higher number were predicted.


And these missed targets are already the result of downgraded targets.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Ridiculous expectations
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 24th Jan 2013 05:11 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous expectations"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What you're seeing is people realizing that Apple has hit that point where its no longer a growth stock. Mutual funds and large institutions sometimes want to maintain a certain portion of their holdings in growth stocks. If Apple is no longer a growth stock, then they'll have to adjust their portfolio accordingly. I think that's what you're seeing now. Or at least it sounds like it to this complete financial noob.

So basically Apple's not doing a terrible job, but neither are analysts or people selling the stock. They just have different objectives and perspectives.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous expectations
by henderson101 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous expectations"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Ah, like Dell, HP and Microsoft... right! Gotcha!

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Exactly, with the obvious difference that Apple is still the worlds most valuable publicly traded company by market cap.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Valhalla
by Valhalla on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:12 UTC
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

How much of a future does desktop computing have at Apple?


Well the larger question is likely how much of a future the current way we think of 'desktop computing' has.

Back when Steve Jobs declared the 'post-pc era' is arriving I put little to no stock to it given that it was such a self-serving prophecy. Apple had realised that Microsoft's monopoly on the traditional pc desktop could not be budged and thus ushered in a new 'era' where the pc desktop as we think of it would be obsolete.

Like I said, I didn't buy into it, but now we're seeing how Microsoft is desperately scrambling to get any kind of foothold in these 'post-pc' era mobile devices, and in order to do so being fully prepared to sacrifice their relationships with OEM's, not to mention pissing off a large amount of users who see no need for a mobile touch focused UI on their desktop machines.

We are seeing the computing power in these mobile devices increase at a rather rapid pace, so is the 'future' of desktop computing a 'tablet' to which you connect a keyboard/mouse (and alternatively a larger screen) if/when you want to use it as a 'desktop pc'?

As such it would consolidate the traditional 'desktop pc' and the 'laptop pc', I suppose?

Anyway, interesting times ahead.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Valhalla
by No it isnt on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by Valhalla"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Not this nonsense again. Desktop computing will be around for a long time, not least because tablets and phones are ergonomically poor for doing pretty much anything work-like, and not really all that good for anything else.

The "post-PC era" just means web sites need to be accessible to mobile interfaces. You can no longer expect the user to have a Windows PC with a mouse and Internet Explorer. PC sales are slowing down because your old PC is good enough. Even upgrading my old Radeon 5770 seems like it's not worth the money.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla
by Macrat on Thu 24th Jan 2013 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Valhalla"
Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

Not this nonsense again. Desktop computing will be around for a long time, not least because tablets and phones are ergonomically poor for doing pretty much anything work-like, and not really all that good for anything else.


You really think a lot of "work" tasks won't be modified to work with a tablet and keyboard?

Desktop/laptop computing won't go away entirely, but it is declining fast.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla
by Valhalla on Thu 24th Jan 2013 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Valhalla"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

not least because tablets and phones are ergonomically poor for doing pretty much anything work-like, and not really all that good for anything else.

Well what I was describing was combining a 'tablet' with a mouse/keyboard for when using it for 'desktop pc' tasks and just as a 'tablet' when 'mobile'.

Mind you I'm not really arguing against you, I'm just trying to envision the future based upon the recent seemingly panicked actions from Microsoft.

Only way I can make sense of it is if they predict a strong consolidation between todays mobile 'devices' and the traditional home pc desktop.

Like you said, people will still need to do 'work' which is often not suitable with a touch interface, but why do they need to be separate devices when all that really differs (assuming the mobile hardware specs keep improving at a rapid rate) is that of a keyboard/mouse and possibly a larger screen estate?

So basically you have a 'tablet' style computer which you can bring with you anywhere and which works just fine using 'touch' for consuming information while on the move. Then when you want to 'work' you place it in some holder to be viewed as a typical desktop screen (or use it with an external screen) and connect it to your wireless keyboard/mouse and get to work, desktop-style.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla
by Nelson on Thu 24th Jan 2013 04:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

This super amazing, futuristic device is called a Surface Pro.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla
by Neolander on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yup, and before it we had things like iPad keyboards, Asus Transformers, or Samsung tablets with styluses...

Hardware is definitely getting there, but for now, OSs & applications still don't deal well with such an environment of mixed input devices and user expectations. Either they don't even try, or they are just bad at it.

Edited 2013-01-24 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla
by Valhalla on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

This super amazing, futuristic device is called a Surface Pro.

Well, duh, what do think I was getting at? ;D

This (or a device very similar to this) is what Microsoft is (from the looks of it) hedging their bets on for the future.

It will be interesting to see if Microsoft can fully transition to this 'post pc era' (if indeed it is what we are seeing) and end up with a large part of the 'post pc era' marketshare or if Apple and Google has already gotten too much of a head start.

Surface RT bombed so it seems clear that should Windows be able to compete in this market it needs to leverage the large amount of Windows apps and developers which is where Surface Pro come in.

However I doubt that legacy apps on the Surface Pro will 'cut it' from a average consumer perspective so there will still likely be a strong need for Metro/Surface-ified applications which needs to be written.

Also the ~4 hour battery time reported is poor, but the big thing is the price, $899 without the type cover which is another $129 from my understanding.

I can't see them competing with the Apple/Android tablets on this price, even though this, unlike Surface RT actually has a software ecosystem.

So as I see it, this means that Surface Pro is squarely aimed as the 'future' desktop/laptop consolidated device I was previously speculating about, will that niche (which is what it currently is, a 'desktop pc' in a tablet form) be attractive enough to give Microsoft a 'tablet' market share?

I'm doubtful, but it will certainly be interesting too see how it all pans out, Microsoft certainly seems to have gone 'all aboard' on the 'post pc era' bandwagon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla
by ichi on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Mind you I'm not really arguing against you, I'm just trying to envision the future based upon the recent seemingly panicked actions from Microsoft.

Only way I can make sense of it is if they predict a strong consolidation between todays mobile 'devices' and the traditional home pc desktop.


Predictions or not that's actually the only way for Microsoft to get a foothold on the tablet market: bring them close to the platform they already dominate.

Google on the other hand is trying the same thing in the opposite way with their Chromebooks.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla
by Soulbender on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Valhalla"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Desktop computing will be around for a long time


Sure, but the use of large, bulky and immobile desktop computers will decline and it will probably happen with some haste.

not least because tablets and phones are ergonomically poor for doing pretty much anything work-like, and not really all that good for anything else.


Attach a proper keyboard, mouse and a USB drive and you can do most desktop tasks on a tablet with ease. Desktops will still be around for demanding tasks but most user's will be fine with a flexible tablet.

The "post-PC era" just means web sites need to be accessible to mobile interfaces


What the rather stupid term Post-PC mean is the decline of desktop computing.

PC sales are slowing down because your old PC is good enough.


Right and with more and more powerful and flexible mobile systems why would you buy a desktop once your old desktop no longer is good enough?

Edited 2013-01-24 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla
by Neolander on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

"PC sales are slowing down because your old PC is good enough."

Right and with more and more powerful and flexible mobile systems why would you buy a desktop once your old desktop no longer is good enough?

I guess the same reasons why people buy desktops instead of - or in addition to - laptops today would still apply. Stuff like an increased value for the price in "static" use cases, larger and higher-quality screens, better ergonomics when you want to work for an extended period of time, more flexible and robust hardware, easier sharing within a family...

Not everyone needs a desktop, but those desktops which haven't been replaced by laptops likely won't be replaced by tablets either. Only laptops need to be afraid of the rise of touchscreen devices, as soon as the software on these things grows up beyond the "Fisher Price, my first computer" stage.

A cellphone/tablet docking mechanism which doesn't suck could remove some of the aforementioned advantages of desktops over laptops, but AFAIK, no one has been seriously working in such a direction so far.

Edited 2013-01-24 06:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla
by Soulbender on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Stuff like an increased value for the price in "static" use cases


True but tablets are already pretty cheap. Either way, this still spells the decline of desktop computing.

larger and higher-quality screens


Well, what if you can connect a larger monitor to your tablet?

screens, better ergonomics when you want to work for an extended period of time


I really don't see how a desktop would provide better ergonomics in the case where the tablet has an external mouse and keyboard.

Not everyone needs a desktop, but those desktops which haven't been replaced by laptops likely won't be replaced by tablets either.


True but they won't last forever and when they die, or are no longer "good enough", they're unlikely to be replaced by another desktop.

Edited 2013-01-24 06:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Valhalla
by Neolander on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Of course, one can often do what I did at work and wire a laptop or tablet into a full desktop setup, complete with a keyboard, mouse, large screen, faster and more reliable wired networking, etc...

The core reason why I did this, though, is that I didn't really need a laptop to begin with. If I actually did, I wouldn't bother with the constant plugging and unplugging and would just buy a second desktop machine for the "static" work, with some sort of periodic data syncing between both.

That's what I meant when I said that good enough docking could change the situation. As of today, using a tablet or laptop in a desktop configuration when all you actually need is a desktop, is just too much of a hassle for too high of a price.

As for your argument that desktops are still being phased out in favor of laptops, I frankly doubt it. The average desktop lasts less than a decade, and "good enough" laptops have been around for longer than that, so people who actually needed a more portable device have likely already made the switch.

Edited 2013-01-24 07:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Valhalla
by zima on Mon 28th Jan 2013 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Valhalla"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

As for your argument that desktops are still being phased out in favor of laptops, I frankly doubt it. The average desktop lasts less than a decade, and "good enough" laptops have been around for longer than that, so people who actually needed a more portable device have likely already made the switch.

But "good enough" and affordable laptops have been around for much less than a decade+ ...the price of laptops became tolerable (for your average consumer; who also doesn't seek portability so much, more a desktop replacement machine) only about half a decade ago tops.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla
by moondevil on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Sure, but the use of large, bulky and immobile desktop computers will decline and it will probably happen with some haste.


I thought it did already.

Since 2001 I only use laptops privately and at work since 2006 we use laptops with docking station.

The only place for towers is servers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla
by Soulbender on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The only place for towers is servers.


God no, that's the place for rack mounts. Dunno where the heck towers belong anymore ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Valhalla
by MOS6510 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm not sure I should reveal this, but a well build tower server can be used to stand on allowing you to reach new heights.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Valhalla
by moondevil on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Not on my company ;)

Right now I have a server under my desk.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Valhalla
by quackalist on Thu 24th Jan 2013 08:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Under my desk for one......all unwanted 4 core + towers gratefully received, PM for address ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Valhalla
by sgtrock on Thu 24th Jan 2013 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla"
sgtrock Member since:
2011-05-13

Nahh, the best place for towers is under BYOC hobbyists' desks. Like mine. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Valhalla
by lustyd on Sun 27th Jan 2013 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla"
lustyd Member since:
2008-06-19

"Attach a proper keyboard, mouse and a USB drive and you can do most desktop tasks on a tablet with ease. Desktops will still be around for demanding tasks but most user's will be fine with a flexible tablet."

Not in the business world. I recently interviewed one person from every team in a large company (it took a LOOOONG time). The vast majority of business users never leave their desk, and certainly won't be taking a device with them when they leave for the day. It's quite depressing finding out what the "normals" do for a living, because it turns out to be boring and repetitive. A few examples:
number of call center workers needing laptop/tablet = 0
number of receptionists needing laptop/tablet = 0
number of typists needing laptop/tablet = 0
number of people working in accounts (not accountants) needing laptop/tablet = 0
even more depressing is number of first line IT workers needing laptop/tablet = 0

I agree there will be a HUGE shift towards mobile compute, but in the business space it will be far less than you think, and more likely we will see VESA mount micro computers taking over to reduce desk space used

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Valhalla
by unclefester on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:48 UTC in reply to "Comment by Valhalla"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


We are seeing the computing power in these mobile devices increase at a rather rapid pace, so is the 'future' of desktop computing a 'tablet' to which you connect a keyboard/mouse (and alternatively a larger screen) if/when you want to use it as a 'desktop pc'?


Current ARM SOCs are no faster than x86 cpus from the early 2000s. It will take many years before tablets and phones are powerful enough to replace desktops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructions_per_second

Edited 2013-01-24 08:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Valhalla
by chiwaw on Thu 24th Jan 2013 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Valhalla"
chiwaw Member since:
2006-02-05

Current ARM SOCs are no faster than x86 cpus from the early 2000s. It will take many years before tablets and phones are powerful enough to replace desktops.


I understand what you mean but it's actually not quite true. Desktop have become WAY more powerful than needed by most people. If say 95% of the people only uses 20% of their desktop processing power at all time (which is just a wild guess but I bet is probably not far from reality), then it means that for 95% of people they can replace what they have with a computer only 20% as powerful. Especially that tablets and the likes have OSes that are specifically optimized for weaker CPUs, so they don't waste as much as heavier OSes.

Sure there's always going to be the exceptions, the people who needs every single MIPS they can get from their desktop, but these people are the exception.

Edited 2013-01-24 08:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by viton
by viton on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:12 UTC
viton
Member since:
2005-08-09

shipped 47.8 million iPhones, lower than the roughly 50 million that Wall Street analysts had predicted

Apple is doomed. Clearly it is on downfall spiral =)

Reply Score: 8

v RE: Comment by viton
by wocowboy on Thu 24th Jan 2013 10:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by viton"
RE[2]: Comment by viton
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Jan 2013 10:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by viton"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yep, and Thom just couldn't wait to jump on the bus with the rest of the loons saying that. LOL


Where did I say they were doomed?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by viton
by MOS6510 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by viton"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

If I were to point at something it would be the "iPhone disappoints" bit.

It should say/mean "Annalists prediction of iPhone sales wrong again".

In fact the iPhone didn't disappoint and sold in record numbers.

Also why wonder about the future of the iMac? Sales are down a bit, but mainly because people were waiting for the model and once it arrived more people wanted one than Apple could deliver.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by viton
by henderson101 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by viton"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

If I were to point at something it would be the "iPhone disappoints" bit.

It should say/mean "Annalists prediction of iPhone sales wrong again".


Actually, the most correct title would have been "iPhone disappoints Wall Street analysts predicted sales", because really, that's all this was. Predicted sales. Shah Wu/Gene Munster etc, complete fantasy land.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by viton
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by viton"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If I were to point at something it would be the "iPhone disappoints" bit.


Those aren't my words. I'm just copying Reuters - just as I did for Google, and as I will do for Microsoft. Go complain there, if you wish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by viton
by MOS6510 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by viton"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

When I click the link it says "Apple's iPhone Disappointment Fans Doubt on Growth".

So you are linking to story A, while getting the headline and summary from story B?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by viton
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Jan 2013 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by viton"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

When I click the link it says "Apple's iPhone Disappointment Fans Doubt on Growth".

So you are linking to story A, while getting the headline and summary from story B?


Oh, no, they changed the title overnight, apparently. This is the title from last night, when I posted it. Let me fix it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by viton
by MOS6510 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by viton"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

A butterfly in Japan can cause storms on the other side of the world and changing a headline in the US can cause arguments in The Netherlands.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by viton
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 24th Jan 2013 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by viton"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If I were to point at something it would be the "iPhone disappoints" bit.

[..]

Also why wonder about the future of the iMac? Sales are down a bit, but mainly because people were waiting for the model and once it arrived more people wanted one than Apple could deliver.


True - though it's a big stretch to interpret that as a claim that "Apple is doomed," even an implied one.

It should say/mean "Annalists prediction of iPhone sales wrong again".


I'm not sure what an "Annalist" is, and I don't think I want to know ;)

Just about anything would be an improvement on the current headline, though - that's some seriously awkward wording:

"Apple's iPhone disappointment fans doubt on growth"

I had to re-read it about five times before it made sense, at first glance it reads like it's referring to fans of iPhone disappointment who are "doubting on" growth. Then I realized it means "fans" in terms of "fanning the flames" - though I've honestly never heard anyone talking about "fanning doubt" before. Even just using "fuels" instead of "fans" would have made the meaning clearer. (And yes, I do realize that Thom didn't write the headline)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by viton
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 08:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by viton"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12


True - though it's a big stretch to interpret that as a claim that "Apple is doomed," even an implied one.


Yes, but I also didn't want to imply Thom was going that far.


I'm not sure what an "Annalist" is, and I don't think I want to know ;)


Apparently the word exists and that explains why my spellchecker didn't alert me (or even filled in that word). It means:

"a person who writes annals."


Just about anything would be an improvement on the current headline, though - that's some seriously awkward wording:

"Apple's iPhone disappointment fans doubt on growth"

I had to re-read it about five times before it made sense, at first glance it reads like it's referring to fans of iPhone disappointment who are "doubting on" growth. Then I realized it means "fans" in terms of "fanning the flames" - though I've honestly never heard anyone talking about "fanning doubt" before. Even just using "fuels" instead of "fans" would have made the meaning clearer. (And yes, I do realize that Thom didn't write the headline)


Yes, it took me a while too what they meant.

Still, it's strange this "failing to meet predictions" stuff. If a friend gives you a present each year, each time more expensive, and one (birth)day he gives you the most expensive gift to date, but you expected something even more expensive you are disappointed?

To me it seems a bunch of analyst (ha!) pull some figures from wherever they can, mix in some personal feeling and theories and come up with a figure. Take 10 analysts and their predictions and none are the same. This leeds to believe it's more guesswork than science.

This implies that financial people/traders base their actions on... guesses.

When I was in school they explained this shares/stock stuff. If a company was doing well or you thought it would do well you could buy shares and get a piece of the profits.

In reality companies that do bad can have shares that go up, companies that do good can go down and people don't go for a share of the profits, they just want to buy low and sell high. And of course you can make more money with that than dividend.

In this case many people bought Apple shares, suddenly they go down so they all get rid of them, planning to buy them back when Apple bottomed out.

All this financial news and analyst stuff is all a joke, a make believe world. It's just a game of trying to buy low and sell high. Be on the right time and your a winner, be late and be the loser.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by viton
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 25th Jan 2013 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by viton"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"
True - though it's a big stretch to interpret that as a claim that "Apple is doomed," even an implied one.


Yes, but I also didn't want to imply Thom was going that far.
"

My mistake then, it looked to me like that was what you were implying - since it was a reply to Thom's comment asking where he'd claimed that Apple was doomed.


"
I'm not sure what an "Annalist" is, and I don't think I want to know ;)


Apparently the word exists and that explains why my spellchecker didn't alert me (or even filled in that word). It means:

"a person who writes annals."
"

Ha, figures. I kid only because I've narrowly avoided a similar, but much more embarrassing mistake... Let's just say that I've come very close to telling clients that they were going to be literally billed through their their rear ends (thanks to my bad habit of misspelling the word "annually" & over-zealous autocorrect on mobile devices) ;)

Yes, it took me a while too what they meant.

Still, it's strange this "failing to meet predictions" stuff. If a friend gives you a present each year, each time more expensive, and one (birth)day he gives you the most expensive gift to date, but you expected something even more expensive you are disappointed?

To me it seems a bunch of analyst (ha!) pull some figures from wherever they can, mix in some personal feeling and theories and come up with a figure. Take 10 analysts and their predictions and none are the same. This leeds to believe it's more guesswork than science.


Oh no argument here, I take that as a given. Compared to financial analysts & stock market analysts and forecasters, there are very few professions that are less scientific/evidence-based - and in contrast to their perceived authority... with the possible exception of astrologers. Or as Futurama put it, "After consulting with our top voodoo-economists..."

Reply Score: 3

No future without Jobs
by cmost on Thu 24th Jan 2013 00:48 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

It's unfortunate but the sad fact is that Apple is nothing without its visionary and hard ass Steve Jobs. Those of us old enough remember what a disaster Apple became in the early to mid-nineties, before Jobs re-took the helm know only too well how Apple squandered it's early technology leads and led the company into distress. Apple, amid of a slew of missteps and stupid business decisions, had one foot in bankruptcy court when Steve Jobs came back. Obviously, under his direction, he turned Apple around. Without Steve Jobs, Apple is already sporting the telltale signs of a slow downward spiral. Personally, I won't shed a bitter tear.

Reply Score: 1

Meh
by siraf72 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 05:20 UTC
siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

The results are clearly not bad by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect part of the problem is that Apple relies on it's growth to generate value in it's share price and Wall Street only cares about that too, rather than paying dividends to it's shareholders (In fact, they never did once under Steve Jobs, AFAIK).

Apple has had another stupidly successful quarter in terms of earnings and profits. It's not as stupidly successful as in the past but so what.

The Mac's results are interesting, but you can't take that out of the context of the entire Desktop/laptop industry. When you consider that, Apple is still doing far better than most!

In terms of share price, I thought Apple has been overvalued for some time now, but what do I know...

Reply Score: 3

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 06:55 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

They missed the target outsiders predicted of iMacs sold, because they couldn't build enough new ones. I know people who waited on the new model iMac and when it arrived they had to wait until they became available. Apple also sold more iPhones than ever.

Apparently during the last quarter they sold 10 iOS devices per second.

If Apple is doomed and on a death spiral than a lot, if not any other company in the world, will go bust way before Apple does.

Reply Score: 2

Better than last year = disappointement?
by chiwaw on Thu 24th Jan 2013 07:05 UTC
chiwaw
Member since:
2006-02-05

Alright I know this site is anti-Apple, but really this news speaks volume about Wall Street much more than Apple itself. The company improved from last year, yet "disappointed" because it didn't grow as much as some Wall Street bozos guessed it would.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Apple completely stagnate for the next 10 years, I mean they sell the exact same amount of iPhones, iPads and Macs every single years. Never less, never more. Basically turning a truck load of billions on profits every years.

Now because they would never hit Wall Street expectation for growth, the company would always disappoint, yet constantly bringing mind boggling profits in its coffers. But the disappointment would sink the stock down.

How does that even make sense? Someone who is more knowledgeable than me about the stock market can shed some light?

Edited 2013-01-24 07:06 UTC

Reply Score: 1

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apple used to beat expectation and even then the stock would go down.

I think shares, in general, have little to no attachment to reality. Analysts are guessing based on guessed numbers or "market trends". Everyone has a different conclusion.

People just try to buy low and sell high, nobody buys shares to get dividend instead of interest of a savings account.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think shares, in general, have little to no attachment to reality


I wish more people would realize this. Stock brokers lives in their own little world where panic is just around the corner and where reality have little influence.
Castles made of thin air, as the saying goes back in Sweden.

Reply Score: 3

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Well, it's not like these financial people are causing global economic chaos with their behavior.

Oh wait!

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Alright I know this site is anti-Apple


Oh sod off. Go complain at Reuters. I specifically chose the same source for the financial news as for Google, and it's still not good enough for you?

The company improved from last year, yet "disappointed" because it didn't grow as much as some Wall Street bozos guessed it would.


Stock price reflects the expected ability that an investment in said stock will generate a return. It has very little to do with past performance. Apparently, stock traders don't seem to think that investing in Apple's stock will yield them as much of a return as investing in other stock would. And considering the past few months of dropping stock, that seems to make sense.

Apple's stock doesn't exist in a vacuum. This is the basic mistake people seem to make. "Apple did great last quarter, so why is the stock going down?" Well, that's because investors seem to think there's more money to made with other stocks. It's really not that complicated. You'll most likely see the stock price bottom out - it may already have with -10% now - after which there's breathing room for the stock price to go up again, meaning there's money to be made.

All this stock drop highlights is how stupid Apple bloggers were when they proclaimed Apple would reach $1000. As it turns out, Apple's max is round and about the $700.

Edited 2013-01-24 09:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Stock price reflects the expected ability that an investment in said stock will generate a return


Stock price reflects the unrealistic and often incorrect expectations of the stock brokers.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And, which psychic told you that $700 is their max level??


Well, wasn't their highest value somewhere around there, after which it dropped to its current level? That's no guarantee, of course (hence the "apparently"), but it does highlight the idiocy of statements that it would shoot right on through to $1000.

And, why did you select Reuters as your source? Hmmm...


Because cows, that's why.

Reply Score: 2

brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"And, which psychic told you that $700 is their max level??


Well, wasn't their highest value somewhere around there, after which it dropped to its current level? That's no guarantee, of course (hence the "apparently"), but it does highlight the idiocy of statements that it would shoot right on through to $1000.

And, why did you select Reuters as your source? Hmmm...


Because cows, that's why.
"

99.999% of tech or any businesses would kill for Apple's disappointing results last quarter, but the future? Who the hell knows? I remember when Apple finally came back with a profit quarter more than a decade ago; and analysts were creaming their jeans. I dislike over-hyped expectations from anyone.

Reply Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

99.999% of tech or any businesses would kill for Apple's disappointing results last quarter, but the future? Who the hell knows? I remember when Apple finally came back with a profit quarter more than a decade ago; and analysts were creaming their jeans. I dislike over-hyped expectations from anyone.


So... That's 1 out of 100000 companies would not kill for Apple's level of earnings.
Sorry dude... Apple's absolute numbers may sound great, but ROI is not an absolute thing. There are a lot more companies that generate higher growth rates than Apple right now.

Reply Score: 3

brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

They were constrained, but still highly profitable, and they seem to manage growth quite well, thank you. I am not real concerned with their long term prospects.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

This isn't about you or their absolute profits. This is all about the stock price and investors' view on the matter of profits.

PS: They were constrained for iPhone5 for a quarter of a quarter. And they were constrained on iPads for a few weeks after launch. They were not constrained when it came to the primary gifting season, where they have their biggest sales.

Edited 2013-01-25 05:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

And, which psychic told you that $700 is their max level?? And, why did you select Reuters as your source? Hmmm...


Durrrrr, ya think maybe it could have something to do with the fact that Reuters is of the most widely-used newswire services in the world? ...nah, that couldn't be it, must just be Thom's "anti-Appe bias".

Reply Score: 4

chiwaw Member since:
2006-02-05

Oh sod off. Go complain at Reuters.


It's a little late for me to sod off. I'm probably one of the oldest reader here, going back to the early days of OSNews in the late '90s when I was dual booting BeOS and QNX Neutrino and looking for OS news ;)

I'm not complaining btw. Some blogs are hopelessly pro-Apple (Gizmodo!) some others are hopelessly anti-Apple (Slashdot!), it's all fair game. I don't expect blogs to be emotionally neutral toward a company like Apple that tends to always brew strong emotions on each sides.

Stock price reflects the *expected* ability that an investment in said stock will generate a return.


Thanks that's the part I was missing. The way I interpret it, say, half the stock value is what the company is right now, and half the price is what the company is expected to be in the future. That part is evaluated by stock analysts. If the company doesn't perform as planned, that portion of the stock price goes down (hence the whole stock goes down).

Am I too far from reality?

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's a little late for me to sod off.


Sorry for that one, by the way - uncalled for.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Profits dropped considerably. That's the disappointing part.

Edited 2013-01-24 14:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

chiwaw Member since:
2006-02-05

They actually turned a slightly higher profit than a year ago ($13.1 millions vs $13.06 millions). Not sure where you got your "Profits dropped considerably"...?

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Ok. Ok. Profitability, not profits.

Reply Score: 2

Happy news...
by rafaelnp on Thu 24th Jan 2013 09:55 UTC
rafaelnp
Member since:
2009-06-03

...for those who don't like Apple. Keep going Apple, keep going...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Happy news...
by henderson101 on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:29 UTC in reply to "Happy news..."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

...because Apple made a record profit and therefore aren't going anywhere. Yes, happy news for Apple haters.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Happy news...
by rafaelnp on Fri 25th Jan 2013 14:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Happy news..."
rafaelnp Member since:
2009-06-03

I don't like apple because they are hypocrites. They sue Samsung for "patent infringment", but one of the founders, the well known Steve Plagiarist Jobs, copieded blatantly the Xerox Palo alto research center ideas. Without Xerox's ideas Apple would be nothing.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by thegman
by thegman on Thu 24th Jan 2013 10:07 UTC
thegman
Member since:
2007-01-30

I think Apple will continue to sell desktop/laptop computers. As well as tablets and phones sell, people don't *need* tablets, and whilst they probably *need* a phone, most people are buying them somewhere else.

Tablets, being fashion driven, will slow in sales and at the same time become commoditized. On the other hand, if you want a desktop computer, there really are only two choices, Mac or PC.

At my work, people have tablets, phones and desktops. You can do without any of them apart from the desktop, as without that, you cannot do your job. That's a good place to be, selling something that people *need* not what they *want*. Needs change slowly, Wants change overnight with the fashion.

Reply Score: 2

Apple disappoints
by Tony Swash on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:14 UTC
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Apple's earnings for the final quarter of 2012, was “disappointingly” the largest corporate earnings year in human history by a tidy margin, causing some investors to panic

Apple’s $13.1 billion in earnings this quarter was the 4th largest by any company of all time.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple disappoints
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:43 UTC in reply to "Apple disappoints"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Again, you don't seem to know how this game works. Stock prices reflect the expectation of returns by investors - not the company's actual performance.

Apple is doing fantastically. Apple's stock, however, is taking a bit of a hit because investors think they can make more money elsewhere. That's it. It'll bounce back up.

Edited 2013-01-24 11:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple disappoints
by brichpmr on Thu 24th Jan 2013 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple disappoints"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

Again, you don't seem to know how this game works. Stock prices reflect the expectation of returns by investors - not the company's actual performance.

Apple is doing fantastically. Apple's stock, however, is taking a bit of a hit because investors think they can make more money elsewhere. That's it. It'll bounce back up.



Which reads differently than the misleading phrase.."iPhone sales disappoint."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Apple disappoints
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 24th Jan 2013 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple disappoints"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Which reads differently than the misleading phrase.."iPhone sales disappoint."


For the fourth, maybe fifth time now: in the interest of fairness, I'm just copying Reuters for all companies' financial results. Go complain at those guys.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple disappoints
by tylerdurden on Thu 24th Jan 2013 20:24 UTC in reply to "Apple disappoints"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

False, Exxon is the company with the largest corporate earnings year. In fact Exxon Mobil has had 3 years with larger corporate earnings than Apple.

Your buddies at Apple PR dept got too carried away...

Reply Score: 2

White Goods
by Chrispynutt on Thu 24th Jan 2013 11:54 UTC
Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

At this point PCs and TVs are back in the white goods category. You replace them when they break.

Surely Macs are like Dysons at this stage. Those that love them swear by them and everyone else just gets the cheapest one they can.

Computers are ultimately tools, going from flint to iron is worth the upgrade otherwise keep it sharp and use it as long as you can.

Reply Score: 2

Long term concerns
by novad on Thu 24th Jan 2013 13:05 UTC
novad
Member since:
2010-06-10

I don’t understand one thing...

There’s some time now I’ve noticed a trend about comments in OSNews (Specifically related to Apple)

There are (and have always been) Apple lover and this is good! People talk best about products they love and their comments are often very interesting.

The new trend, which is really sad, is the few very noisy fanatics who complain every time about any news concerning Apple that isn’t an absolute glorification of an Apple product / leader / stock / Whateverwithanapple. There’s a very good website for that... It’s MacDailNews (sorry for citing another website Thom ;) ).

-----------------

So now my 2 cent about Apples actual situation (Ohhhh. A new self proclaimed analyst ;) ):

Disclaimer: As I heard that the situation is different in the US, let’s say that the following points aims the rest of the world ;)

- Appple makes very good products

- Apple has a good overall experience for those who like the Apple’s ecosystem

- Apple’s reputation WAS very good until beginning 2012

- Apple is more and more seen by the masses as a company who lives through litigation and no more through innovation (Purely Subjective). This point is important as a lot of Apple’s user appreciate the “hype” factor around this brand. And some of them even buy these products only because of the hype factor.

- Apple had the monopoly for good phones and tablets until beginning to mid 2012

- Since mid 2012 there are very serious opponents on the market. And yes, quality hardware (Phones/Tablets) running with Android > 4.1 are at the same level (if not better) than Apple’s products (Personal preferences aside). There are also other very good products than Android but they can’t be considered as a serious threat actually to the market leaders.

- Phone/Tablet market is still a growing market (and that shouldn’t end soon). That means that a company selling more than the previous year is nice... But it’s not the most important... What is relevant is the sell growth compared to the market growth. If a company sells 5% more in a market that is 50% bigger and another company fills the gap this is a concern for investors (Numbers are just for the example and doesn’t reflect any reality).

- Jobs was the symbol of Apple’s genius. I say symbol as I know that all the work is done by the engineers and they haven’t vanished... But well... He is (was) a symbol with all its implication

So No... Apple is not doomed, but yes, Apple is in a longterm difficult situation. It’s not fair for them but in their actual situation, if they don’t come up with a new revolution soon and/or if they don’t preserve the hype factor around their Brand in a way or another, the Joe user will go toward other products.

Apple curious people, lovers and fanatics will always stay even in the worst case scenario, but that won’t be enough for investors.

So now... For the fanboys, feel free to bash this comment as much as you want. (I’m Zen ;) )

For the others, as always, sorry for my English. I do my best.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Long term concerns
by M.Onty on Thu 24th Jan 2013 13:46 UTC in reply to "Long term concerns"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23


So No... Apple is not doomed, but yes, Apple is in a long term difficult situation. It’s not fair for them but in their actual situation, if they don’t come up with a new revolution soon and/or if they don’t preserve the hype factor around their Brand in a way or another, the Joe user will go toward other products.


I wish my company was in a state even vaguely comparable to Apple's 'long term difficult situation'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Long term concerns
by novad on Thu 24th Jan 2013 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Long term concerns"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10

I wish Apple would give me 0.001% of its revenues ;)

As I said.. It's only in a long term that Apple could get into problems. Actually all is the green for them and if they are a bit careful it will also stay like this

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Long term concerns
by M.Onty on Thu 24th Jan 2013 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Long term concerns"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

♫ I reach the top, have to stop, and that's what's bothering [my shareholders] ♫ --- Louie Cook

Reply Score: 2

M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

That is a really lousy headline from the NYTimes, even by the standards of American papers. Took me about four reads to gather than 'fans' didn't mean what I had assumed it did.

Reply Score: 2

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

That is a really lousy headline from the NYTimes, even by the standards of American papers. Took me about four reads to gather than 'fans' didn't mean what I had assumed it did.


Hah, glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that. "iPhone disappointment fans" sounds like some kind of broken-English equivalent of "Apple haters". Or the kind of thing you see in blog spam comments ("I thanks you for the great infos!!")

Reply Score: 2

Stock Exchange vs. Astroturfing
by poliorcetes on Fri 25th Jan 2013 08:47 UTC
poliorcetes
Member since:
2009-05-06

On the one hand, Traders don't care if they are playing with apples, pears or oil. They just observe how any concrete share is going, invest on it if it seems to have good perspective and wait for the sweet moment of selling it, harversting as much as benefit as possible. It is always the same. Some shares grow quickly and attract a lot of attention and investments... until they overheat. As a share skyrockets, money grows coward and coward until at some moment the more advised traders start to sell. No big news

On the other hand, Apple visibility is huge. It's not by chance or even because the brand is fashionable. No, there have also had a very long astroturfing campaign in films and media. It's amazing when you realize it: in a lot of films or documentaries you can see Apples used by positive characters. The other day I watched "Anatomy of a dinosaur", with paleontologist using Macs everywhere... until some of them have to show 3D renderings of an hadrosaurus running, and they were using a specific piece of software running on Windows XP. Just an example, of course no big news too.

And there is the spice: CRI-SIS. We haven't exit the crisis of 2008, and indeed it is worsening after a relative stop. People don't buy PC because they are at the very end of their adoption curve, and because they want to save money too. Money is more coward than ever, and it is affecting a brand who offers premium products at premium prices for a computer. You have to be quite rich for adquiring a BMW Z4, but you don't need to be so prosperous for buying a Mac. As Apple is more and more popular, the brand detachs itself from exclusivity.

There, when there is a clash between standard stock market behaviour and astroturfing and such clash is tuned by crisis, the result is quite clear. Indeed, the only interesting question for me is not if, but when: when Apple stock is going to return to reasonable price (200? 150?) or when it is going to recover its prior niche position outside of USA. It is indeed laughable that AAPL doubles market capitalization of some of the biggest oil companies, if you compare oil with PC and gadgets.

Reply Score: 1