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.
Thread beginning with comment 550382
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by viton
by MOS6510 on Fri 25th Jan 2013 08:05 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by viton
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 25th Jan 2013 23:43 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 Parent Score: 3