Apple Announces Most Profitable Quarter in History

zacharye writes with an except from an article over at BGR about Apple's quarterly results: "'Disappointing' though it may have been to some, the iPhone 4S propelled what is now confirmed to have been the most profitable quarter any technology company has ever recorded. Apple on Wednesday reported record earnings for the December quarter, revealing a profit of $13.06 billion on revenue that surpassed $46 billion. Among technology companies, Apple's fiscal first quarter represents the most profitable quarter ever recorded. Only one U.S. company has ever posted a more profitable quarter — Exxon managed a profit of $14.8 billion in the third quarter of 2008 — and the driving force behind Apple's record-setting performance was quite clearly the iPhone."

Comments

Nokia and RIM

[vakuona]

Nokia and RIM should read and weep. This should have been them.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[ackthpt]

Nokia and RIM should read and weep. This should have been them.

Poor choices of business partners and lack of vision on the part of RIM, nothing new there. Someone has to win.

I imagine Steve Ballmer needs a new chair at the moment. So that's a plus for the local office furniture outlet he buys from .. expect them to declare a good quarter, too.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[BasilBrush]

Of course some people seem to think that Windows and Android are winning.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Nokia with a slew of real, open, MeeGo phones by now.

*burns whatever platform Elop is standing on*

*pisses somewhere else*

*returns from fantasy land to reality*

*cries in beer*

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Samantha Wright]

I don't know the real numbers, but Android could still be winning. It's not as if all of the different manufacturers have one joint financial statement.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[clarkkent09]

They didn't have Jobs. When he came back Apple was almost bankrupt and had to be rescued by Microsoft. It took great vision to take a nearly broke computer company and take on the most contested markets like consumer electronics and music and win through quality and design of the products alone. And I'm not even an Apple fanboy.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[LucidBeast]

You win some you lose some. Nobody can predict what kind of phones people buy two or tree years from now.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

I can. Most of the phones in the world will still be nokia's basic phones just like they have been for last ten years or so. Why? Because in the biggest markets (in terms of numbers sold), people can't afford anything else.

Remember to mention that you're talking about SMARTphones if you want a discussion about rich markets and place where android, ios and black berry have a standing.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Swampash]

Apple makes more money from its smartphone than every other smartphone manufacturer in the world combined.

The top-selling smartphones in the US last quarter were, in order: iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS.

And the tablet market? Let's call it what it is - the iPad market.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[PRMan]

Android is certainly the bargain option. Apple makes more money than Microsoft in the PC market, so you could say they are "winning". But that would neglect the fact that Microsoft has over 90% market share. And that, although Apple had as much as 14% market share in the past, a couple bad decisions and they were nearly gone. Microsoft has made hundreds of bad decisions, and yet they survive no problem.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Flytrap]

I don't know the real numbers, but Android could still be winning. It's not as if all of the different manufacturers have one joint financial statement.

More than half of Verizon smartphone sales in Q4 were iPhones
Read more: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-57365200-233/more-than-half-of-verizon-smartphone-sales-in-q4-were-iphones/#ixzz1kQco5gZ4

And the rest is shared between all the numerous Android manufacturers, not to mention RIM (which is still hanging in there), the smattering of Windows Phone manufacturers and a hodge-podge of low end smart phones still running Samsung's Bada or Nokia's Symbian.

You are correct... Android is not a company with its own income statement. The Android handset manufactures compete among themselves as much as they compete against the iPhone. And the thing that is rarely ever said out loud (only whispered in dark tech filled corners) is that the majority of the Android registrations that Google cites in its numbers are cheap low end hand sets that most people pick up for free on a two year contract...

The Android standard bearers such as the Galaxy S2 and some of the HTC models are easily as good as or better than the iPhone... but so many people are entering the smartphone world at the bottom end; and that space is filled with so many so-so Android devices, it is understandable why some (39% according to the latest research) make the switch to an iPhone as soon as they can.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Proudrooster]

I agree.. The new iPhone is really, really well done. Siri is so simple that my grandma can use the iPhone. This is clearly a time where profits were earned through innovation and delivery, not just accounting tricks. Exxon being the second closet company gets their product for nearly free, so this is definitely an accomplishment. The question is, without Steve is this sustainable.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[elashish14]

There are only 3 models of iOS phones currently being sold. You can't expect one of the tens-hundreds of Android phones to outsell anything on a platform of only 3 models.

And the reason for this is that Android users have Choice - this is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Flytrap]

Yeah... when you look at the global stats (not just the US and Europe) you see that about a third of all smart phones sold each quarter run Symbian OS. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201101-201112-bar

It is easy to forget that when we talk about iOS, Android, Blackberry and Windows Phone, we are talking about touch screen smart phones - which still make a tiny portion of the number of handsets sold globally, but a huge portion of the revenues earned by the industry.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[oodaloop]

So there's no chance that, in three years, inexpensive Android phones will permeate these markets? Are you blind? I've found low-end unlocked generic Android phones on eBay for less than $200. Moore's Law will cut than half twice in the next three years to $50. Is that affordable yet?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you managed to regurgitate Gruber's points exactly!

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Shifty0x88]

Moore's Law will cut than half twice in the next three years to $50. Is that affordable yet?

Moore's Law say nothing of price, and for that matter speed, but number of transistors, which CAN equate to speed, but does not necessarily. FYI

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Microsoft saved Apple's ass via a cash infusion?

Thank god for Microsoft.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[milkmage]

define win.
Android ships more units. Apple makes more money.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[BasilBrush]

Android ships more units. Apple makes more money.

Actually iOS ships on more devices than Android.

Windows does ship more units though.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Swampash]

I hear Kodak had a huge market share too.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Android is certainly the bargain option. Apple makes more money than Microsoft in the PC market, so you could say they are "winning". But that would neglect the fact that Microsoft has over 90% market share.

And that, although Apple had as much as 14% market share in the past, a couple bad decisions and they were nearly gone. Microsoft has made hundreds of bad decisions, and yet they survive no problem.

What good is market share if you aren't making any money?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[yuriyg]

What good is market share if you aren't making any money?

Microsoft made 54.37 billion dollars last year. Hardly "not making any money."

Re:Nokia and RIM

[foniksonik]

The problem with your logic is that a pie divided a hundred times isn't very nourishing by the slice. In other words, these companies who are providing choice may not last long enough to provide substance. They certainly aren't going to be spending their meager profits on R&D and coming up with the next big idea. That leaves you at Googles ad driven perogative. Good luck with that.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[NatasRevol]

That's revenue (total sales), not income (profits).

MSFT made $23B last year. Which is $10B more than AAPL made last quarter.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[MBC1977]

I'm certain they probably regret that action.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has 90% desktop share. When all devices are taken into account, Microsoft drops to under 50% and is shrinking. Microsoft is stuck in the 90s and cannot understand mobile devices.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[scotts13]

Remember when Microsoft saved Apple's ass via a cash infusion?

Thank god for Microsoft.

Interestingly enough, that turns out not to be true.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

And, had Microsoft kept its investment, it'd be worth over $6.3 billion.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft made 54.37 billion dollars last year. Hardly "not making any money."

They only made $23.47 Billion in contrast to Apples's $25.92 Billion.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

So your suggestion is, that if you see somebody trick dumb people into buying shiny overpriced crap*, you should weep for not doing it yourself?
Some people have a conscience, you know?
All Apple did, is doing what Microsoft did (sell oversimplified dumbed-down crap to lazy and dumb people who fall for gurus, abusing their flaws), but doing it better.

Sorry, but acknowledging that most people seem to be Idiocracy-style idiots, I'd still treat them nicely, and help them make the most of their pitiful situation. (Everybody has the right to a chance.) Not take as much of their money as possible and give them useless glass pearls for it! That's just nasty!

* The first iPhone's functionality was silly compared to any Nokia phone. It didn't even have a camera. Let alone the bazillion other functions every other phone on the marked had. All it had, was a big touch screen and a shiny UI. The iPod was, and still is, just another MP3 player. The iPad is the SUV of devices: Totally pointless. And all of them are not even computers, since as a user, you can't program them yourself, which is the very definition of a computer.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[elashish14]

I think this is a bit hyperbolic. First of all, if Apple does any R&D, I'm fully unaware of it. Even Microsoft research has produced some useful work (untrustworthy as they are) and some interesting technologies, and that's not even getting close to some of the stuff that Google's working on. If Apple diverted half of the millions they spend on lawyers towards R&D, they would easily have several times the amount any of the competitors in their field has. Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/60872

And second, a company does not need to make $50 billion to provide substance. Samsung, Motorola, HTC have made some outstanding pieces of hardware - example: nothing I've seen comes close to beating Samsung's sAMOLED+ screen. Another example: Apple was far late to the game in providing dual-core processors in their phones. One could even say that their excessive development time holds them back, and I don't care what the sales figures are, but if the only innovation you can produce in all the time it took to create the 4S is a program that sends your voice to an AI from a company they bought out, I have to say that all that money in their coffers may as well not exist.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[DinDaddy]

Android still has more marketshare in phones and smartphones. But if you count android devices agains iOS devices, I am not sure they are.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[R3d M3rcury]

[...] and had to be rescued by Microsoft.

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

One of Apple's biggest problems at the time was that they were going out of business. It was all over the news, in case you missed it. Apple was going out of business. Everybody knew Apple was going out of business.

Now, would you buy a product from a company that everybody knew was going out of business? Would you consider selling parts or components to a company that everybody knew was going out of business? If you would do so, would you offer them decent credit terms? Of course not--they're going out of business! Everybody knew that Apple was going out of business! You'd be crazy to offer them any kind of credit because they'd go out of business and you'd be left trying to collect pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court.

It's tough to build iMacs when you have to pay cash up front for parts.

Microsoft's cash investment was $150 million in common stock--remember that, at the time, Apple had something like 4 billion dollars in the bank. So the dollar amount wasn't that much. It was more the press of Apple being aligned with Microsoft to basically shut up all the "Apple is going out of business" people. Once everybody decided that Microsoft wouldn't let Apple go out of business because then Microsoft would be a monopoly (of course,, Microsoft tried to play the Apple card during their monopoly trial and the judge decided that Apple was not a competitor of Microsoft), Apple was able to get better terms.

I will agree that Microsoft "rescued" Apple. But the rescue was more in the terms of reputation than in cash.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be a sad day for the world when any single vendor controls the entire portable device market.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jcr]

Yes they did, and unlike Apple, they failed to adapt to changing technology.

-jcr

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jcr]

had to be rescued by Microsoft.

Nope. MS put in $150M as a token investment. The main point of that deal was that MS promised to keep shipping Office on the Mac for five years, and Apple let them off the hook for stealing Quicktime code for Windows.

-jcr

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple diverted half of the millions they spend on lawyers towards R&D, they would easily have several times the amount any of the competitors in their field has. Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/apples-r-d-spending-hits-bottom-as-percentage-of-revenue/60872

You sir, are a moron.

You probably well know (since it was an earlier slashdot story that slammed Apple) that Apple spent $100 Million dollars suing android
folks of course even that amount is probably high since the article is attributed to rumor promoted by Dan Lyons whose has about
a 0% track record of being correct about anything apple). You calim they should spend 1/2 of that which would be $50 million. And that
is over probably a couple of years of lawsuits.

The article you linked to, has a misleading headline because it is talking about a ration, where one of the values is growing
ridiculously fast, so the ratio gets smaller. So try real hard to think past knee jerk hatin' and realize that the very article
you linked to said the spent 1.78 *BILLION* dollars in 9 months. I bet that's a hell of a lot more than most of the others,
and certainly does a hell of more with the results.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[tyrione]

Nokia and RIM should read and weep. This should have been them.

Says, who? You? They don't have the technical expertise to match Apple, period.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

None whatsoever, and I'm not blind. Low end symbian phones go for ~20-30 USD right now. Each android phone pays about 10 USD to microsoft in licensing costs. Then you have to factor in the reality that symbian requires almost an order of magnitude less computing power and RAM to run.

Hell, don't take it from me. Take it from the person who known a whole lot more then you or I about the issue: samsung. They explicitly and publicly state that they cannot compete with nokia in low end phones. End of story.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[afabbro]

First of all, if Apple does any R&D, I'm fully unaware of it.

Apparently, such fullsome unawareness is a willful choice on your part, because R&D is a line item in public companies' income statements. Looks like Apple spent $758 million last quarter. If that's typical, then that's about $3 billion a year.

I guess you're fully aware now.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, on the tablet market, I tend to agree with you, Apple probably has 90% - but that's in the US. The US is a minority market anymore. More to the point, I don't exactly see any hard numbers in your post above. Apple basically only sells three models, and they are the only vendor with iOS, so it only makes sense that as for phone models, they are going to have the top selling models. Aside from that, anyone who wants iOS has to to buy from Apple, so it makes sense that since iOS is popular, Apple would be number 1. On the other hand, I somehow doubt that if you added up all the smartphone sales from Sharp, Toshiba, NEC, Sony, SonyEricsson, HuiWei, HTC, Samsung, etc., etc., that they would be less than Apple's. In fact, since iOS is now a minority of sales in the smartphone market, there is a good chance that Android alone has more revenue. (Yet perhaps not, since some of the phones are cheaper than the iPhone - though certainly not the ones from Japanese makers, which have all sorts of hardware features that foreign models (including the iPhone) don't). Certainly if you aren't just talking Android, then you add in RIM and Nokia, etc., then Apple is probably not "making more than every other smartphone manufacturer in the world combined". A statement like that should really be backed up by actual numbers.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Daniel Phillips]

Apple makes more money from its smartphone than every other smartphone manufacturer in the world combined.

I often hear that said by Apple admirers as if it were a good thing. But is spending too much on a consumer item really a good thing? Perhaps more to the point, if consumers somehow become unwilling to pay that premium in droves, perhaps because more cost effective alternatives exist, what will happen to that revenue stream, and consequently, Apple's share price?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Daniel Phillips]

Actually iOS ships on more devices than Android.

What makes you think Google cares how many music players ship?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toruonu]

Mmm... when Steve came back in 1996 and introduced the reworked Apple (with cleaning of the board and going back to the strongpoints) he also announced a deal with Microsoft where MS injected money for non-voting shares (that MSFT made use of 5 or so years later with hefty profit) and promised to bring office etc to Apple's platform for N years. THAT did save Apple to some extent as Steve's said that they were days away from bankruptcy.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple gained $150m from Microsoft but $800m from the sale of their stake in ARM.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, iPhones are quite price competitive with Android phones, at least the ones made by reputable top-tier manufacturers, so consumers aren't exactly being ripped off. A lot of Apple's profit advantage comes not from fanboism (which has always existed, yes, but nowhere on this scale), but from the fact that they have such a small product line: it is much easier to recoup R&D cost and get the best prices on supplies when you have that kind of volume. It is not Apple's fault that their competitors insist on introducing gazillions of models every other month, most of which have only minute difference in functions--thus confusing customers, reducing R&D effectiveness, and gutting supplier negotiation leverage.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CrackedButter]

Whose fault is it to release all those types of phones?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CrackedButter]

Hi two points.

One, what are you saying when you end your comment with 'And I'm not even an Apple fanboy'? I took that to mean that only fanboys know that truth, but you've been blessed with enough to see it yourself without becoming one with the mighty Apple. Really it's just that you believe in the history and the facts, which anybody could if they don't let their prejudice's stand in the way of reality.

Two, speaking of prejudices, history, facts and certain realities, I'm interested to know why you think socialism is slavery?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Joce640k]

Apple makes more money from its smartphone than every other smartphone manufacturer in the world combined.

The top-selling smartphones in the US last quarter were, in order: iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS.

And the tablet market? Let's call it what it is - the iPad market.

Sure, but Android has 100 models where Apple has 3.

If you add them all up it's outselling the iPhone.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jedrek]

While that's true, what we think of as smart phones (QWERTY keyboard or large touch screens) aren't what these stats consider to be smart phone. The candybar Nokia E51/E52 is considered a smartphone.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Kartu]

iPhone4's are top selling model only because competitors like Samsung offer many different models. Apple's smartphone market share is about 14% worldwide, 25% in US. Samsung's market share is about 24% worldwide. Apple making more money with 14% market share than remaining 96% (assuming it's true) only tells you how hard it "pwns" its customers. It might sound good to you only if you've invested in their stocks, but hard too see why anyone would like this fact as a consumer.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I don't know the real numbers, but Android could still be winning. It's not as if all of the different manufacturers have one joint financial statement.

Most of them don't report shipments either, let alone actual sales.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

There are only 3 models of iOS phones currently being sold. You can't expect one of the tens-hundreds of Android phones to outsell anything on a platform of only 3 models.

And the reason for this is that Android users have Choice - this is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing.

You are obviously right: in Q3, when Apple only had two models, they only sold half as many units as all Android phones combined, now with a 50% larger choice they again sell as much as all Androids. Obviously Apple needs one more phone model to crush Android.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

define win. Android ships more units. Apple makes more money.

Android ships more units. Apple sells more units.

I joke. In reality Android ships more phones; slightly at that. Devices: Apple clearly wins.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Yeah... when you look at the global stats (not just the US and Europe) you see that about a third of all smart phones sold each quarter run Symbian OS. http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-201101-201112-bar

That are not sales numbers. Don't pretend they are.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[randomsearch]

> Apple had something like 4 billion dollars in the bank

Citation needed. I've never read that before. AFAIK, Apple did not have that kind of cash available - that's why they needed it from MS.

And yes, the reputation side of things (Office, etc.) were also vital.

RS

Re:Nokia and RIM

[flyneye]

Winning? Extra charges for everything, Security concerns out the wazoo.Tiny bitch ass screens not nearly enough for the computing expected from these devices. A few months to obsolescence( bigger, better,faster next week). Draconian contracts and Terms of Use. Clearly, in a pack of lemmings, there are no winners.
      It makes me glad to have a not-so-smart phone and a handful of laptops and desktops for ACTUAL APPLICATIONS. Besides who wants to make those jerks any richer?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has 90% desktop share. When all devices are taken into account, Microsoft drops to under 50% and is shrinking. Steve Ballmer is stuck in the 90s and cannot understand mobile devices.

Fixed that for ya... The reason Microsoft has trouble in the mobile market has way more to do with the leadership than the company.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Savage-Rabbit]

Apple makes more money from its smartphone than every other smartphone manufacturer in the world combined.

The top-selling smartphones in the US last quarter were, in order: iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS.

And the tablet market? Let's call it what it is - the iPad market.

Sure, but Android has 100 models where Apple has 3.

If you add them all up it's outselling the iPhone.

You changed the subject. All Android smartphone manufacturers may out sell Apple is not the same as all of them out earning Apple.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[rtb61]

Your Apple marketdroids are just so funny. Are you saying every tech company out there should shut it's doors or just contract for pennies to Apple. Keep in mind those Apple profits indicate that those companies (and their employees) are totally getting screwed over.

So genius should Apple contractors all shut their doors because they are not generating Apples profits, even though they provide most of Apple's product, quite a crazy worm in the Apple thought.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

How much tax are they paying? Their fair share? Or are they avoiding paying so that ordinary Americans pay make up the shortfall?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jones_supa]

I've found low-end unlocked generic Android phones on eBay for less than $200. Moore's Law will cut than half twice in the next three years to $50. Is that affordable yet?

I think we're already at roughly $100. For example, there is this Diel phone which sells for 100€.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[mla_anderson]

They're a business, good businesses don't pay taxes. Their customers pay the taxes for them.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Swampash]

Samsung, Motorola, HTC have made some outstanding pieces of hardware

Not a user feature

nothing I've seen comes close to beating Samsung's sAMOLED+ screen

Not a user feature

Apple was far late to the game in providing dual-core processors in their phones

Not a user feature

Apple doesn't care about what it HASN'T included, it cares that what it HAS included is user-friendly and easy to use, is manufactured and sold at a price that no competitor can match, and (more than anything) that it is available on the exact day that Apple said it would be. Only nerds care about shit like SAMOLED this and dual-core that. The rest of the buying public care about how will this thing make my life easier. Answering that question while not giving a shit about hardware feature lists seems to be working pretty well for Apple, dont you think?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Swampash]

iPhone4's are top selling model only because competitors like Samsung offer many different models.

And which one of those strategies seems to be working the best?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[AmiMoJo]

None whatsoever, and I'm not blind. Low end symbian phones go for ~20-30 USD right now. Each android phone pays about 10 USD to microsoft in licensing costs.

Actually you can get a reasonable Android phone for about £20 at ASDA right now, so I doubt that nearly half of that goes to Microsoft. Android's big advantage over Symbian is that it costs nothing, which is handy because the low end Chinese manufacturers probably wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Then you have to factor in the reality that symbian requires almost an order of magnitude less computing power and RAM to run.

Android will run really well on a sub 400MHz CPU and 128MB RAM, which is about the minimum ARM system-on-chip spec going these days.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[hobarrera]

Andoid may have more market share. Remember that not one company sells Android, but many, and Android phones can cost as little as 1/3 of an Iphone.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[hobarrera]

US is not the same as "the world combined".
Iphones aren't popular en latin america anymore. I've seen Android sell like hot chocolate here in Argentina.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

Don't worry, Windows Phone 7 will obviously save Nokia.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Other than Samsung, who's actually making growth in this industry? RIM and Nokia aren't. HTC isn't, Moto isn't.

Unless you're able to vertically integrate like Samsung does, having a huge smattering of devices isn't particularly healthy.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Jobs biography, Apple was no where near bankruptcy then. However, they did need the industry to buy into the idea they were going to survive. Jobs reached out to Gates to shore up Apple's image as a player. Microsoft needed Apple to maintain its argument that it was not a monopoly. It was a win/win.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

It's a bad thing if you want to give everyone a consistent experience or you want to develop apps, like games, where performance difference can matter.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

Didn't you know R&D for Apple is locking up children in dungeons for not owning an iPad. They're the new evil, buy windows phone 7!

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

Maybe people are learning from their experience on the desktop that skimping on cost leaves them with shit that doesn't work well.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

Which of course doesn't help any one company other than Google. Google has taken the Windows approach and will leave the hardware guys to fight over scraps and if it goes like the desktops, a lot of them will die off or move onto something else.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah because nearly non-existent profits have helped tremendously on desktop computers. That's why a lot of companies have died off, are lookign to move to tablets to save them or copying Apple's model with ultrabooks to save them.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[oodaloop]

Here ya go, I googled it for you:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Quad-band-one-Sim-A-GPS-Android-2-1-Cell-Phone-3G-Mobile-Qwerty-Unlocked-New-Wh-/260936117519?pt=Cell_Phones&hash=item3cc1012d0f

60 fscking dollars for an unlocked Android phone. This has been happening for a while now, your vision impairment aside. Cheap generic low-end Chinese Android phones have been coming down in price and permeating developing countries' markets and eating Nokia's lunch. Just because Samsung can't profit from competing with Nokia, doesn't mean no one can. Tell me again that in another three years there is "no chance" these will be cheaper. And if Nokia has the largest market all sewn up, why are they failing and desperately trying to change their business model?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jo_ham]

How could they regret something they didn't do?

MS bought $150 million in non-voting stock as part of a legal settlement. At the time it was a nice amount of money, but nowhere near "saving Apple's ass". They then subsequently sold it off for some reason. Pity, since they flushed about $6 billion down the hole by selling early.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[PhotoJim]

And seriously, a person only has to compare Apple products at launch to the competition to see if there is any R&D being done.

The iPhone at launch was entirely like any other phone on the market. It inspired a new generation of phones from almost every other manufacturer. The bulk of the R&D on that product might have gone into ergonomics and user interface and not "new technology", but that's still R&D and it's still significant.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[coinreturn]

Android is certainly the bargain option. Apple makes more money than Microsoft in the PC market, so you could say they are "winning". But that would neglect the fact that Microsoft has over 90% market share. And that, although Apple had as much as 14% market share in the past, a couple bad decisions and they were nearly gone. Microsoft has made hundreds of bad decisions, and yet they survive no problem.

Actually, in the PC market Microsoft has a 0% share. They do not sell PCs, they sell the operating system.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[PhotoJim]

I don't see why any consumer would care. Here's how economics works: companies come up with products and services and people buy them, or don't buy them. People are buying iPhones at Apple's price, which means that people perceive that there is value in them.

Frankly, the fact that there are significantly cheaper options out there and yet Apple still manages to do so well speaks volumes as to how happy their customers are.

People joke about Apple "fanbois" and there is some truth behind the derision, but consider it this way: wouldn't you love to be running a company where customers actually love your products and evangelize them? What other companies in the world - companies who sell *any* product or service - have that kind of loyalty? I'm sure there must be some, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. (I love my local pizza place, but their prices are similar to the competition's and they don't exactly lead the world in pizza profits.)

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jbolden]

I think in PCs the best way to understand the market is this.

Under $1k PCs Apple has almost no share
Over $1k PCs Apple has 90% share

Re:Nokia and RIM

[cpu6502]

>>>"Apple makes more money from its smartphone than every other smartphone manufacturer in the world combined."

I'm glad Apple is doing well, rather than driven out of existence like Commodore, Atari, and Netscape were (by Microsoft).

But - How come we don't hear the politicians demanding a "windfall profits tax" like they did with Exxon two years ago? I guess it's only bad to make a profit if you're an evil oil company, but if your a tech company it's a good thing to rake-in equivalent amounts of money.

I hate double standards.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jo_ham]

Microsoft did not "rescue" Apple. This false statement gets passed around here like it's gospel, and yet it's trivially easy to look up.

They bought $150 million in non-voting stock as part of a settlement, which was a nice chunk of cash, but nowhere near rescuing Apple.

They then sold that stock for cheap, and missed out on $6 billion, had they held onto it.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jbolden]

Perhaps more to the point, if consumers somehow become unwilling to pay that premium in droves, perhaps because more cost effective alternatives exist, what will happen to that revenue stream, and consequently, Apple's share price?

A fall off in margins is priced into Apple's stock. Wall Street is banking on Apple not being able to sustain margins well above industry averages over the next decade. If either:

a) The margins fall off and sales skyrocket
b) Margins don't fall off

The stock will do very well.

In the case the margins fall off it comes down to how fast.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor is it the same as *any* of them outselling Apple. I'm amazed by the number of people who think that it's a *bad* sign for a company when the entire rest of the industry combined sells more of a product than that one company.

The top 3 PC manufacturers are Dell, HP, and Apple, but Apple is a 'failure' because the conglomeration of {Dell + HP + Acer + Toshiba + everyone else} sells more product than Apple itself.

The 3 best selling smartphones are all Apple products, and they sell at *worst* 1 in 3 of every smartphone sold, but they're a 'failure' because the conglomeration of {every other smartphone manufacturer combined} outsells them in total.

Ford isn't viewed as a failure because the conglomeration of {Chevy, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda, Kia, etc} sells more cars than Ford as a single company. Why on Earth is it different for Apple?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[UnknowingFool]

But - How come we don't hear the politicians demanding a "windfall profits tax" like they did with Exxon two years ago? I guess it's only bad to make a profit if you're an evil oil company, but if your a tech company it's a good thing to rake-in equivalent amounts of money.

Um because Exxon was collecting subsidies from the US government at the same time they were making extreme amounts of profit. I am unaware that Congress enacted laws to give Apple subsidies. Also Exxon moved their headquarters to Switzerland to reduce taxes than Apple which is still an American company. Now if you go down to Houston, the buildings and workers are still there. They just moved to Switzerland on paper.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[MikeMo]

Microsoft DID save Apple, sorta, but not directly from that financial investment. What it got Apple was: 1) credibility. If Microsoft were investing in Apple, they're probably going to stick around and 2) Microsoft promised to make Office, which had been an on-again and off-again product in those later years, and the lack of Office was a huge barrier for a lot of folks at that time.

Apple actually had about a billion in cash at that time, so the $150MM was nice, but not crucial. It was the implied longevity that made the difference.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[fritish]

I like Google's intent with Android but I like Apple's execution with iOS.

Google seems to be doing great things, but at 80-90% completeness. This yeilds products that are 'good-enough' but not always a pleasure to use. Apple goes the extra mile to make their devices are 90-99% complete.

I still have gripes about some of Apples things, like their Find My Friends (which only finds your friends if they happen to use iPhones) whereas Google's Latitude works across many devices. But overall I think this huge earnings report is not undeserved.

Still, I'm excited to try my new Galaxy Nexus when it comes in and see how it stands up to the iPhone.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jbolden]

Actually you can get a reasonable Android phone for about £20 at ASDA right now

I don't know that market specifically, but most likely you are talking subsidized cost. That doesn't really mean much. The question is what does the phone retail for not what it sells for with a contract.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Choice? Are you fucking joking?

Jail breaking aside.

How come the biggest complaint is that Android users cannot download ICS and load it on their Androids (assuming hardware specs in line) at the will of the user? Where is the fucking choice? You fuckers are being bent over the barrel worse than iPhones, yet you do not want to acknowledge it.

The carriers are going DP on you shit heads and you are thanking them for it.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone4's are top selling model only because competitors like Samsung offer many different models.
Apple's smartphone market share is about 14% worldwide, 25% in US.
Samsung's market share is about 24% worldwide.

Apple making more money with 14% market share than remaining 96% (assuming it's true) only tells you how hard it "pwns" its customers. It might sound good to you only if you've invested in their stocks, but hard too see why anyone would like this fact as a consumer.

I assume you meant 14% market share and the remaining 86% (assuming it's true).

Re:Nokia and RIM

[OwMyBrain]

I imagine Steve Ballmer needs a new chair at the moment. So that's a plus for the local office furniture outlet he buys from .. expect them to declare a good quarter, too.

Ah, the Good ol' Broken Chair Fallacy.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

They are crushing Android. Market share is a meaningless metric for a company if net profit generated from that market share isn't commensurate. iOS may have a smaller market share than Android, but Apple is sucking down almost all of the profits in the mobile space. What little profit is left for Apple competitors is getting carved up between a multiple companies. With only three iPhone models, two iPad models (3G and not-3G), and one iPod Touch model, Apple's iOS expenses:profit ratio is far better than what a lot of Android hardware makers (with their multitudinous Android offerings) are seeing on their income statements.

Translation: Apple is spending relatively little compared to the collective Android competition and is getting a far better return on the money spent. A lot of hardware companies are spending a lot of money building a lot of Android products just for the right to fight over Apple's crumbs in the desperate hope that one of their future products might someday catch fire and make some real money.

Now, somebody please explain to me again how Android is supposedly winning?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is, without Steve is this sustainable.

It's inevitable that, at some point, Apple will succumb to the law of big numbers--eventually the market will get saturated and things will level off. The question will be where Apple and all of the Android players are when the avalanche stops and the snow hardens.

But consider this: Apple just introduced the iPhone 4S in China in the last three months, and had to shut down their Kunming store because the mob lined up outside started rioting when they realized there wouldn't be enough to go around. Read: Apple hasn't started playing seriously in China yet. And Tim Cook also pointed out that Apple only sells the iPhone in partnership with 232 cellular providers, but there are over 500 providers worldwide. So Apple still hasn't inked deals with 50% of the providers. So, still plenty of room for growth. That market saturation won't happen for a bit.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[cpu6502]

Apple's not really an American company. Almost all of their staff are located in China building the phones, computers, tablets, ...

And you're right Apple didn't get subsidies, but I can't find any indication that Exxon received subsidies either? Can you provide citations?

More about Apple's not-so-shiny image -
http://www.rifuture.org/apple-the-company-no-american-should-be-proud-of.html

Re:Nokia and RIM

[BasilBrush]

What makes you think Google cares how many music players ship?

What makes you think it's about whether Google cares?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Grizzley9]

THAT did save Apple to some extent as Steve's said that they were days away from bankruptcy.

No, not according to news reports at the time. Apple had 1.2 B in cash on hand. The 150M was nice but was nothing that would save them from any bankruptcy. The bigger help was Office for Mac and other cross licensing deals.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Grizzley9]

There are only 3 models of iOS phones currently being sold. You can't expect one of the tens-hundreds of Android phones to outsell anything on a platform of only 3 models.

And the reason for this is that Android users have Choice - this is a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing.

It's only good to a point to where the models are actually supported. If you buy a smartphone and the mfg never updates the software or supports it afterwards due to the next big thing coming out, I don't see how anyone can see that as a good thing, unless the model was near perfect at launch. Having too much of this Good Thing leads to bad things.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Quirkz]

If I remember right, that's the closing scene (or close) in Pirates of Silicon Valley. Steve up on stage with a gigantic projected image of Bill Gates looming over all, leaving a queasy feeling in the pit of every Apple fan's stomach. Funny how quickly and dramatically everything changed since then.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[brokeninside]

Samsung Q4 smartphone sales: 35 million (forecast)
Apple Q4 iphone sales: 37 million (actual)

The iPhone is outselling all models of Samsung's smartphones combined.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[JoeWalsh]

Exactly. Let's ask an expert. Mr. Ballmer?

"Developers, Developers, Developers!"

Re:Nokia and RIM

[sglewis100]

I don't know the real numbers, but Android could still be winning. It's not as if all of the different manufacturers have one joint financial statement.

Winning what? Marketshare? That's _A_ component of a company's success, but Android isn't a company, and marketshare isn't a quarterly profit.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

So, it's about 4-6 times more expensive then low end nokia, and is a chinese build which will break in a year, unlike nokia which will work for a decade. Not to mention it's most likely skipping licensing fees (i.e. manufacturing volume is small enough for microsoft not to care). Also, it's a wholesale price. Wholesale price for low end nokias is around 15 USD.

Finally, yes, it's unlikely to get cheaper. Because below a certain price threshold, it's not longer the cost of hardware that matters, but your logistics chain. And nokia is known to have one of the best logistics chains in history of Western world, and is quite probably one of its most valuable assets.

Seriously, get off the fanboy horse and look at the market in places like Africa. Actually, scratch that, take a look at the market in India and China. While nokia has taken a hit, mostly from dual sim phones, its cheap, reliable phones are still the elephant in the room.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[sglewis100]

Actually iOS ships on more devices than Android.

What makes you think Google cares how many music players ship?

That's like saying what makes you think Microsoft cares how many netbooks ship? An OS developer would tend to care about things like marketshare, profits, etc. Apple makes a lot of money on iOS, and not JUST from phones.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[ajo_arctus]

I think I read somewhere that the $100M Microsoft injected would have made little difference to Apple's bottom line/survival, but was an important show of confidance. More important for Apple was the Office deal (and in return Microsoft got IE5 bundled as the default Mac web browser).

Out of that period came my favourite Steve Jobs quote of all time, when he told the Apple faithful at WWDC "for Apple to win, Microsoft don't have to lose". The same is still true today -- even more so -- there's plenty of room for a huge ecosystem of competing products. The constant arguments in blogs and on sites like this about whether Andoid or iOS is winning are futile -- there doesn't need to be one clear winner.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is market share if you aren't making any money?

Exactly! Android is or will be dominating the market (I have a buddy using a G1 right now) but Apple is making money.

With money you can buy the government. At least in the USA you can.

The ridiculous part is that Apple's making nearly 20% profits! Normally, you have to already own the government to do that, because normally somebody who is willing to settle for 11% profit crushes you in the marketplace by offering an equivalent good or service. You normally have to legislate your competition out of business in order to sustain that kind of profit margin, because in the absence of bad regulation the market favors efficiency.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[oodaloop]

So, it's about 4-6 times more expensive then low end nokia

The other number you pulled out of your ass was $20-30, which would be 2-3 times. For many people in developing countries, shelling out another $30 to have a pocket computer with access to the Android App store instead of just a phone is clearly worth it.

and is a chinese build which will break in a year,

Where do they make the good phones, if not China? Newsflash, pretty much all phones, including iPhones and high end Androids are made in China. Maybe China only made cheap crap in 2005, but times have changed.

Finally, yes, it's unlikely to get cheaper.

All technology, especially cell phones, have been getting exponentially cheaper for the same capability.

And nokia is known to have one of the best logistics chains in history of Western world, and is quite probably one of its most valuable assets.

So, again, explain why they are failing? Why did they abandon Symbian? Your argument is that Nokia will have the largest market of phones for the next three years, yet Nokia doesn't agree and is trying to ditch it. WHY?

Seriously, get off the fanboy horse and look at the market in places like Africa.

Why don't you? Again, I googled it for. First result for Android phone africa:

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/41568/android-phone-huawei-ideos-africa

Plenty more atricles like that too. How could you miss this massive worldwide market shift? Nokia is trying desperately to find a winning strategy as their market share of low end phones is being taken up my Android, and you think they should stay the course for the next three years? You're either blind or willfully ignorant.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

but hard too see why anyone would like this fact as a consumer.

Some of us who aren't plebs are willing to pay the cost for a solid, works-as-advertised product that isn't running Nascar and Amazon shit apps.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Microsoft gained on three fronts here - 1) Apple agreed not to file any patent suits against them, at least during the period until those shares matured and the investment relationship was over; 2) they avoided what would have been even more inevitable monopoly charges/investigations should Apple have disappeared; and 3) they made a LOT of money on those shares :)

Re:Nokia and RIM

[ceoyoyo]

Good Android phones aren't really cheaper than iPhones. So either the makers of good Android phones are making an Apple-like profit or Apple has got their supply line working well enough that they're more efficient. Judging by all the whining about how other companies can't compete with Apple on price in the tablet market, a good chunk of it is probably the latter.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[acoustix]

The iPhone at launch was entirely like any other phone on the market..

Your misspelling is accurate. the iPhone didn't do anything new that existing smartphones did. In fact, almost all of the iPhones "new" features were already available on other devices.

But it is pretty.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[SiChemist]

The fact that Apple makes that much more money simply means that they are overcharging their customers. Yet, Apple fans often crow about this as if it's something for them to be pleased about. I have never understood that.

(Full disclosure: I have a Galaxy Nexus Android phone. Since I use Linux at home and work, the iPhone was always a non-starter for me.)

Re:Nokia and RIM

[BasilBrush]

Never mind the fictionalized version. Here's the reality. Listen to those boos!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY&feature=youtu.be&t=4m30s

Re:Nokia and RIM

[PhotoJim]

Indeed I made a typo, but the iPhone is more than the sum of its parts. It's not just what it does... it's how it does it and how easy it is to use.

In any event, the market has spoken. The market doesn't always make the best decisions, but Apple is giving people what they want and other companies aren't succeeding as much in that regard. Apple's profitability says it all.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CptNerd]

"You make it up in volume" is the standard joke...

Re:Nokia and RIM

[SquirrelCrack]

Most end users couldn't care less about the OS that their phone is running. The reason the iPhone is the top selling smart phone is that no one else has released and successfully marketed a handset that is compelling enough to your average user to unseat the iPhone.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[tehcyder]

I wish I was in a position when only having $4bn in the bank meant I was nearly bankrupt.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anubis IV]

If they didn't care, they'd be ignoring a market for tens of millions of additional units on which they could be putting their OS. I may have a lower opinion of Google today than I did 5 years ago, but that doesn't mean they're morons, which is what they'd have to be if they chose to not care about that market. I'm waiting to see what they do about it.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

You should really learn a little bit about the oil business before saying Exxon gets their product for nearly free. There's a little more to it than sticking a tube in the ground.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jedidiah]

So? As long as the current trends continue, all of the fanboy whining about "profits" really doesn't matter. At the end of the day, I have the choice to use something else. I have the choice to use something made by a company and used by users that don't try to trivialize me or my requirements.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jedidiah]

I would rather have a phone that I don't have to jailbreak just so that I have the same basic functionality as a Nokia dumb phone from 2001.

It's a phone, not a pocket computer.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anubis IV]

The graph you cited doesn't show units sold at all. It shows a snapshot of web usage over a time period, which is going to be heavily influenced by the installed base. Try this graph from the same site instead. It paints a better picture of the trends occurring. Plus, with Nokia cutting off Symbian development to bet the company on Windows Phone, their Symbian line is only going to nosedive more in the coming months and years.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

"about a third of all smart phones sold each quarter run Symbian OS".

While it's possible that statistic is correct, your source doesn't support it. The statcounter web site, per their FAQ, measures "pageviews per month collected from across the StatCounter network". So what the numbers actually say is that about a third of all mobile web usage (on their sites) is from Symbian OS. Even if no new Symbian phones were being sold, the percentage wouldn't drop to zero until all existing phones were no longer used.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jedidiah]

Overpaying for my own Macs didn't work out terribly well.

Those things "don't work well". Compared to Apple's appliances, they are a bunch of crap. People might get the wrong idea from the longevity of an iPod. One of those is going to be a lot more reliable and less prone to obsolescence than an Apple computer.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jedidiah]

On the other hand, competitors continue to do well. In fact, they continue to do better than expected. The future simply isn't in the hands of Apple as some fanboys would like to claim.

History is repeating itself.

If fanboys continue to have something they like, that's all well and good. However, there's simply no need to try and create some sort of self-fullfilling prophecy where Apple is the new Microsoft.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Samantha Wright]

Winning in deliberately vague metrics. It's so much more fun when you get to make up your own. (Personally, I like market share multiplied by average zealousness of the user base. Amiga is still winning in the PC realm.)

Re:Nokia and RIM

[fozzy1015]

But - How come we don't hear the politicians demanding a "windfall profits tax" like they did with Exxon two years ago? I guess it's only bad to make a profit if you're an evil oil company, but if your a tech company it's a good thing to rake-in equivalent amounts of money.

Um because Exxon was collecting subsidies from the US government at the same time they were making extreme amounts of profit. I am unaware that Congress enacted laws to give Apple subsidies. Also Exxon moved their headquarters to Switzerland to reduce taxes than Apple which is still an American company. Now if you go down to Houston, the buildings and workers are still there. They just moved to Switzerland on paper.

Not true. The biggest "subsidy" given to Exxon is the Section 199 deduction. Apple(and other tech companies) take the same deduction. Apple even gets a bigger deduction from it - 9% vs. 6%.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[fozzy1015]

I agree.. The new iPhone is really, really well done. Siri is so simple that my grandma can use the iPhone. This is clearly a time where profits were earned through innovation and delivery, not just accounting tricks. Exxon being the second closet company gets their product for nearly free, so this is definitely an accomplishment. The question is, without Steve is this sustainable.

You don't know much about the petroleum business if you think oil companies don't need to reinvest heavily to keep production up. That's the why often a nationalized oil company(say Venezuela's PDVSA) will show a sharp drop in production numbers as time goes. The profits are used for social welfare programs instead of reinvestment.

In 2010 Exxon reinvested $28 billion

Re:Nokia and RIM

[AmiMoJo]

Nope, PAYG. A guy at work bought one and it isn't half bad. Basic camera, reasonably responsive. Because Android is free some Chinese system-on-chip manufacturers put together really low cost systems that run it and then sell those to phone OEMs at super low cost and without licensing fees. The OEMs love it because they get a lot of features and can fully customise the OS, as well retailing at £30.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

How is a high quality high resolution screen that's a joy to use "Not a user feature"?

Exactly how the fuck do you expect me to interact with my touchscreen device? Sure, I could try to talk to it, but it's going to take a long time to read back all of the returned content and video's going to be extremely tricky.

Not a user fucking feature my arse. Look, feel free to defend Apple but please, stop showing blind ignorance. Remember, he's dead, you can stop sucking his dick now.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[quacking duck]

The iPhone at launch was entirely like any other phone on the market..

Your misspelling is accurate. the iPhone didn't do anything new that existing smartphones did. In fact, almost all of the iPhones "new" features were already available on other devices.

But it is pretty.

And yet very few used those "existing features" before the iPhone came along.

Either those existing features were too cumbersome to use, or the makers of those phones had the crappiest marketing of all time.

"Pretty" was used to dismiss the Mac GUI (or any GUI) in the pre-Windows 95 days, and yet every major consumer desktop OS today still uses a close variation of all its original key concepts, almost 30 years later. "Pretty" is just the term ignorant people use to dismiss design and polish.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

You must be American. The rest of us don't worship the almighty dollar.

Frankly obscene profits are not an indicator of who is winning. It's an indicator of who is exploiting their supply chain and ripping off their customers.

If multiple companies are making reasonable returns on investment by selling Android devices then everybody's winning - particularly consumers who actually have a choice which includes buying capable technology at a price point that does gouge their wallets.

As for 'crushing Android', worldwide figures strongly suggest that the Android ecosystem is thriving. This hardly sounds like a crushing to me.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

That's not necessarily the case. They are after all price comparable with top-end Android smartphones, and not too far behind on features.

There is however significant evidence that they're exploiting their suppliers - not least through heavily anti-competitive practices such as demanding 30% of any revenue from their devices, even for other peoples' content IP.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[quacking duck]

Wait, you say there's no need to try creating some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy... right after you claim history is repeating itself?

Apple has defined or severely disrupted several markets--the iPad, iPhone, iPod are just the most recent, and just hardware. In these three cases there was an existing niche market that consumers just weren't connecting to.

If they rest on their laurels, yeah Apple's going to falter and fall. But they've demonstrated a willingness to cannibalize their own product lines when introducing their next big thing, something most companies are unwilling to do. Just look at why Kodak failed, why RIM is in dire straits, and even Microsoft is sustained mostly by the inertia of old product lines like Windows and Office.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

In reality Android ships more phones; slightly at that. Devices: Apple clearly wins.

Even before sales of Android enabled TVs, cars and tablets really start to take off:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/android-700000/

If Asus could sort out their production pipeline the iPad 2 wouldn't even be the highest selling tablet these days.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[quacking duck]

Apple's not really an American company. Almost all of their staff are located in China building the phones, computers, tablets, ...

That is nonsense. Those are staff and workers of Foxconn, a contractor for not just Apple, but also HP, Dell, and many others. Apple doesn't pay them directly, they are therefore not Apple workers.

And you're right Apple didn't get subsidies, but I can't find any indication that Exxon received subsidies either? Can you provide citations?

How about Fox News (via AP article)?

$4 billion a year in tax subsidies.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

Extra charges for everything, Security concerns out the wazoo.Tiny bitch ass screens not nearly enough for the computing expected from these devices. A few months to obsolescence( bigger, better,faster next week). Draconian contracts and Terms of Use.

You have my sympathy. Fortunately for me I've been able to get
- a standalone self-contained device that has no further charges attached to it
- which is sufficiently secure, in that that I have full control over the device (due to root access and the ability to choose which software I install and which capabilities it can access)
- with a 1280x768 pixel screen, which coincidentally is the same resolution as the 15" laptop my employer expects me to work on
- that will continue to work for several years, whether newer devices are released or not

I do pay for a mobile phone contract, but that's because it gives me the ability to speak to people remotely when I'm not at home or at work. It also provides me with Internet access with no further usage charges. I can also cancel that contract without penalty (and keep my device).

It makes me glad to have a not-so-smart phone and a handful of laptops and desktops for ACTUAL APPLICATIONS.

I find that I have to upgrade my laptop far more regularly than my phone. Meanwhile my smartphone provides multiple useful capabilities (implemented as ACTUAL APPLICATIONS) to me while I'm out of the house without me having to carry around an entire laptop.

Still, I can understand that some people may prefer to live in the 90s and not pay extra for a modern device. I'm not knocking that choice, merely highlighting that your input factors may not be valid.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[quacking duck]

So, $199 for an iPhone is overcharging the user, but that same $199 for a Blackberry Bold, Samsung Focus S or HTC Titan is perfectly reasonable?

There are areas where Apple is definitely overcharging (RAM upgrades through their online store, for example), phones are not one of them.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone (on slashdot) knows that all Apple ever does is invent commercials and pretty boxes for hipsters who ride Pennyfarthing bikes around and like to show off their Apple boxes at fancy coffee shops where they get caramel stuck in their handlebar mustaches while their little purse dogs bark out all those Apple ring tones so everyone will no how cool they are when really they just have too much money and don't even realize those fancy apple boxes are just full of clay models of electronics that were copied from real computer companies like Dell and HP, only sold for 3x the cost of everyone elses combined and they work 25% worse too.

At least, that's what I think.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Gilmoure]

Well, except for the manufacturing in China where they can roust 3000 workers from their mandatory company bunk houses and put them to work in the middle of the night. You'd think, with all this profit, they could afford to make stuff in the west and still be able to pay the bills and hand out stock dividends.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

£40 with no contract. It's a pretty shitty phone (unless you believe Asda's quote of "14 days" talk time) but it's an Android phone for forty quid.

To be fair, they offer a number of other shitty phones far cheaper - although "shitty" is relative; their £12.50 phone (non-contract) is feature superior to the top-of-the-range Nokia I bought in the year 2000.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

So, again, explain why they are failing? Why did they abandon Symbian?

Strategy and design choices, rather than their supply chain.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[quacking duck]

The GP wasn't clear that Apple was *perceived* to be going out of business, not that they actually had to close their doors anytime soon.

GP was also wrong about the $4B. They had $1.2B as of September 1997. Adjusted for inflation, that's more than what RIM currently has ($1.4B)

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

What are you going to use it for? Android UI is still sluggish because iOS prioritizes interactivity and graphics more than Android does. What do you need the world's best screen for if the software makes it act like poop?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

Ripping off how? Should all companies be not-for-profit? Nobody are forcing people to buy iOS devices, people choose them over cheaper alternatives the same way people rather eat at proper restaurants than at McDonald's.

Of course the Android "ecosystem" (whatever that is) is thriving world wide, after all it's free for low-cost phone manufacturers to use as they like. The Chinese can just download the source, rip out anything that gives Google money and replace it with local alternatives instead. TANSTAAFL but you do not need to pay for it yourself all the time... :)

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

What "basic functionality" does an iPhone lack, if that was what you hinted at?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[oodaloop]

Strategy, as in fewer people are interested in a basic phone with no apps. They're losing money on Symbian. Yes, they still have lots of them around and they're still selling lots of phones. But this discussion is about the next three years, and the market share of basic phones is only going to decline. So yeah, they ditched Symbian because of "strategy and design choices", that being a nice way of saying their previous strategy of selling lots of basic phones isn't working.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

Foxconn staff aren't any more Apple staff than they are Cisco staff, HP staff, Microsoft staff... they are a third-party supplier. Do you complain that your bakery does not mill its own dough? Apple's staff outside Cupertino are in their stores, their sales, their repair facilities etc.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

I use it daily for several things. This "sluggish"ness you mention isn't something I've noticed.

You appear to be applying prejudice ahead of simple facts.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jbolden]

Wow. Give a hand to Android on getting to a JavaOS price point. OK your point to grandparent stands.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[jbolden]

That's cheap. It does change things that Android is already at the JavaOS price point.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

The 30% cut is only for content purchased directly through apps managed using their services: If I buy a Kindle book on amazon.com and sync it to the Kindle app on the iPhone or iPad without Apple seeing a cent of what I paid. Seriously, did you expect a company to provide a channel for another commercial entity for free? It's not anti-competitive, and 30% happens to be what Google and Microsoft charge in their app stores...

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

Well, more complicated than that. Their strategy around Symbian failed badly, their explorations into Linux tablets (with Maemo) had much promise but compromised by their Symbian focus and their decision not to adopt Android left them without an appropriately competitive flagship device.

So their strategy has been flawed in a number of areas, but it is the reason they've failed to compete, rather than their production pipeline (which was my real point).

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

If I sell an application that lets its users access a shop and buy goods, I don't expect someone else to take a cut of those sales.

Apple demands a cut of those sales. The alternative is that I can't sell that application to iDevice owners due to constraints to trade imposed by Apple.

I struggle to define that as anything other than anti-competitive.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

Is that an example of "we lose money on every sale but will make it back in volume" Bizarro-world logic?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world among developed nations. Of course companies are going to do everything they can to avoid it. How about we just lower the damn tax rate so that the jobs will stay here? They're not just piggy banks that the government can loot. They provide the jobs for the economy and if we had a reasonable tax rate, maybe they'd at least pay some taxes as it wouldn't be worth it to move overseas just to save a few bucks.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember distinctly that at the time the amount of money from Microsoft was insignificant compared to Apple's cash, but it was seen as a "vote of confidence" along with the MUCH MORE IMPORTANT fact that Office for Mac would continue to be offered. At the time, Microsoft Office had more of a monopoly than Windows - even most Mac users had to buy Office just for text file compatibility.
Where did you hear that they were "days away from bankruptcy"?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[mcmaddog]

MS invested 150 million dollars in non-voting shares, but Apple had roughly 1+ billion dollars in cash sitting in the bank at the time. How many days do you think it would have taken for them to blow through the 1 billion dollars? I don't think they were "days away from bankruptcy" and I doubt Jobs ever said that, but if you could provide a reference...

Re:Nokia and RIM

[mcmaddog]

Ok, replying to myself... He did reportedly say it during the All Things D conference last year. And certainly he should know more about Apple's finances than me, but I still find it hard to believe 150 Million would have made any difference when they had 1 Billion in the bank and more likely it's just an attempt at trying to make the come-back story of becoming more valuable than MS that much bigger.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Your misspelling is accurate. the iPhone didn't do anything new that existing smartphones did. In fact, almost all of the iPhones "new" features were already available on other devices.

But it is pretty.

Please don't be a moron and bring up the 'iPhone was nothing new' crap again. How many of those 'other devices' did you see floating around before 2007? Smartphones were complicated and obscure devices to everyone but techies and lawyers (only the BlackBerry) before the iPhone appeared.

It doesn't really matter what some device can or could do if nobody outside of your basement cares.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

Feel free to list all the things the 2001 dumb Nokia phone had that the iphone doesn't have.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[thetoadwarrior]

If you can't run a mac I'm not sure how you manage with an Android phone. Some people just aren't meant to use computers.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Apple had over 4 billion in cash. And received 250 mil from MS. Hardly bankruptcy. The news at the time suggested that the money exchange was for unresolved patent/ip infringements and was more a gesture than true compensation. Ultimately MS needed to show and have Apple as a viable competitor, since the were in the middle of an anti-trust s-storm. Office for Mac was the real "bailout" but at that point both companies needed each other, at least at some level.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

In the most common cases a publisher gives away an app that gets distributed via a third-party channel (Apple's app store). Apple are not in the business of propping up that third-party's business.

Users can go to your website and buy stuff there that they then download to your app. It is not anti-competitive, it is just inconvenient because of that extra step to buy contents. I am sure if Amazon thought the conditions were anti-competitive they would have fought instead of caving in, as they did. Do you know something Amazon's lawyers don't? Apply for a job there!

Re:Nokia and RIM

[UnknowingFool]

Not according to Fox News. Yes Fox News

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

I know something you don't. I know there's a difference between being anti-competitive, and being legally actionable.

Why are you so desparate to claim that Apple aren't being anti-competitive? What's next, you're going to claim that the worldwide lawsuits against Samsung are because Apple customers are in danger of acquiring a superior device by accident?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[UnknowingFool]

The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world among developed nations. Of course companies are going to do everything they can to avoid it. How about we just lower the damn tax rate so that the jobs will stay here? They're not just piggy banks that the government can loot. They provide the jobs for the economy and if we had a reasonable tax rate, maybe they'd at least pay some taxes as it wouldn't be worth it to move overseas just to save a few bucks.

So Exxon's response to higher taxes is tax dodging. I'm sure your average person can't do the same thing. Now if legitimately Exxon moved to Switzerland, I'd have no issue with that. They didn't move there at all. As for the high taxes themselves, among developed nations, the US also has the lowest individual income taxes and the worst health care. But of course, if the US raised taxes for individuals to pay for more health care, there would be screams of socialism.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[camperslo]

Motorola made the first car radio and the first under $100 television set. There was a time when their semiconductors seemed to be in everything.

$13 billion may sound like quite a bit, but rounding to the nearest 100 billion it is still zero. MS can still call the iPhone a rounding error?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[fozzy1015]

"For instance, a 2004 rule that gives oil and other companies a special deduction for their U.S. operations could save the oil industry $18.2 billion over 10 years. "

What are you talking about? That "2004 rule" is Section 199. It's not limited to just oil companies.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... when Steve came back in 1996 and introduced the reworked Apple (with cleaning of the board and going back to the strongpoints) he also announced a deal with Microsoft where MS injected money for non-voting shares (that MSFT made use of 5 or so years later with hefty profit) and promised to bring office etc to Apple's platform for N years. THAT did save Apple to some extent as Steve's said that they were days away from bankruptcy.

Why do people keep repeating this when it's been shown time and again to just be wrong?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to compare Q3 results? Annual sales? ;)
Apple's Q4 results were bumped up by 4S quite a bit.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

In reality Android ships more phones; slightly at that. Devices: Apple clearly wins.

Even before sales of Android enabled TVs, cars and tablets really start to take off: http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/android-700000/

If Asus could sort out their production pipeline the iPad 2 wouldn't even be the highest selling tablet these days.

Sure. If pigs could fly, they'd use Android.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Daniel Phillips]

If they didn't care, they'd be ignoring a market for tens of millions of additional units on which they could be putting their OS...

I think you forgot that Google's business model is selling search terms.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[flyneye]

Root is fine and fun until they do something different on the other end, like update with exclusive code.
1024x768 is great...@ 15" not anything less.
Most "bargain" phone services (cricket, go-wireless) exchange cheap and features for spotty service with messages arriving up to two days after the fact and an inbox full of spam.
I upgrade my laptop frequently too, but then Ubuntu isn't trying to harvest my info or make sure I don't dig into software and hardware guts. My next laptop/touchscreen will not only replace my phone w/skype but also make a better E-reader than anything on the market due to availability of many more extentions than any single one of them offer. Internet comes from home, abroad and a Verizon card (still a phone co. but less prob. than a phone contract)
              I can see some people want to live in the '00s and follow along like good sheep. Small web appliances are soooooo 27 seconds ago...
Man has since evolved to large viewable screens. Miniature computers are just a trend like disco and the pet rock. Comfort and utility will triumph in the end.
Want smaller? Wait for body implants and retinal displays, then wait a while longer for privacy laws to catch up so providers don't harvest information or organs.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[stewbacca]

Should have, could have. RIM took too long to get rid of that horrible scroll wheel, terrible UI, and awful web browsing. So what if it was built for the enterprise back-end. This just goes to show that the consumer front end is just as important, if not more important.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[stewbacca]

"Spending too much" is not dictated by Daniel Phillips, it is dictated by demand. I'm also very tired of this mythical "cost effective" alternative that exists. An iPhone from three months ago is $99. A brand new one is $199. Pretty much every Android phone costs that much. And even if you can find one for free, that's still $99 savings on a two year contract of $100-ish a month.

This is why iPhones sell so well. In addition to being pretty darn good phones, they aren't any more expensive from pretty crappy plasticky options on the Android side.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[stewbacca]

I think the argument goes more like this:

Apple makes three smart phones, a few iPads, several computers, some software, some wireless hardware and is the most valuable company in the world.

Samsung makes more smart phones than Apple and might even sell more smart phones than Apple, but still isn't as valuable as Apple.

Why do people keep making this a discussion about how many phones companies sell, when it's clearly a story about Apple being a valuable company that also happens to make smart phones as part of their lineup?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Dixie_Flatline]

Really? Last I checked, Apple's phones don't cost any more than anyone else's, particularly on contract.

The majority of the money is coming from mobile phone carriers subsidizing the cost of the phone so you only have to pay ~$200 (iPhone 4S)/$100 (iPhone 4)/$0 (3Gs). Clearly THEY perceive some sort of benefit to Apple's phones; indeed, with these sales numbers, how could they not? It's clear that the iPhone still sells well enough to draw customers to their services.

Nobody is getting 'pwnd' here except for you. I don't know why your feelings are hurt that Apple is doing so well while nobody else seems to be able to figure out how to become not just a tech manufacturer but a cultural icon as well.

Here's my advice to you: go buy some Apple stock and then use whatever phone you like. You'll make some money and feel happy when Apple does well, but you'll still feed whatever it is inside you that needs to reject Apple's devices.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anubis IV]

I think you forgot that Google's business model is selling search terms.

And I think you forgot that the whole point of Android is to put their search and their advertisements in front of more eyeballs. They're certainly aren't making any money selling the OS to manufacturers and carriers.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

Losing money on symbian? Do you actually follow the company, or just the singleminded apple/google fansites? Nokia has been hemorrhaging money because of its transition policy to from symbian to meego to WP7 in high end phones. Symbian on mid and low range phones is the thing that keeps the money coming into the company - it's still making a very decent profit for a company in transition, in spite of massive spending on trying to develop and sell WP7 phones.

Look up the latest earnings reports. They are public, as nokia is a publicly traded company. Symbian-based mid and low end phones are about the only clearly profitable part of the company. Smartphones are in the shitters because of Elop's paradigm shift essentially ripping the company to pieces, and NSN has never recovered from scandals that followed the fusion.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

They are dedicated to symbian at least until 2016 according to the official roadmap. Considering the continuous success of symbian in low end phones, unless WP7 policy under Elop pulls off a miracle, you can expect a fair extension to this number, possibly into reasonable perpetuity, as there is still no functional and widespread mobile OS that can function on as little power (both electrical and processing) as symbian.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[oodaloop]

Do you actually follow the company

Yes, though I'm not so sure you do.

Nokia has been hemorrhaging money because of its transition policy to from symbian to meego to WP7 in high end phones

Why do think they are trying to transition to something? Are you saying they are trying to transition from their massively profitable and successful market to something else, for what, no reason whatsoever? Because they failed to seek your insightful advice? They saw the writing on the wall that dumb phones are on the way out and are trying to stay relevant. Yes the dumb phones are selling and are bringing in money right now. In three years? Not so much.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

Most "bargain" phone services (cricket, go-wireless) exchange cheap and features for spotty service with messages arriving up to two days after the fact and an inbox full of spam.

What bargain phone services? I access the internet on my phone, I can use any service available on it - including almost any service available to your laptop. I access the same email account on my phone and my laptop. I certainly don't have 2880 minute latency on my network connection.

I can see some people want to live in the '00s and follow along like good sheep. Small web appliances are soooooo 27 seconds ago...
Man has since evolved to large viewable screens. Miniature computers are just a trend like disco and the pet rock. Comfort and utility will triumph in the end.

You're talking nonsense. I don't have a small web appliance, I have a portable multipurpose computer that's more powerful than my 9 year old laptop. It has a screen that's the same resolution as my current laptop; that makes it pretty viewable for me.

It's comfortable to carry and hold, and it's available to me where I am which gives it significant utility.

You're clearly delusional, you can't construct a coherent argument, your rationale is heavily flawed and I kind of feel sorry for you.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Yeah but you sort of need money to stay in the business of making stuff. Sitting on razor thin margins means that you're going to make a lot of sacrifices just to stay in business.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[brokeninside]

Why just Q3? Oh, right, because it was the one quarter that Samsung outsold Apple!

Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Samsung 13 18 28 35
Apple 18 20 17 37

For annual totals of Apple's 93 million to Samsung's 94 million. More important than introduction of 4s is the entry of Verizon (Q2) and Sprint, Aircel, and Airtel (Q4). Likewise, the addition of Verizon gave Apple a bump in Q2. Q3 is an anomaly for Apple because the release of a new model was being anticipated. People intending to get an iPhone were putting such off in anticipation of the new model expected to be released shortly.

The largest hindrance to iPhone adoption has been the lack of carriers. This is becoming less and less of an issue.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[brokeninside]

Also, work backwards a bit. After all, why restrict to 2011. Q4 2010 saw 16 million units for Apple vs 10 million for Samsung. And then keep going and going, over all, Apple has sole more smartphones.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[flyneye]

You're clearly trendy, you can't understand that although you rushed to the stores like a good sheep, your rational for following the blind led by a corporate piper is evidence that you work against your better interests and I don't feel a bit sorry for you.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

1. Last news quote the following: Still making profit on mobile phones (200 mil euro, down from one billion), sold 113.5 million phones during last year. Took another hit in smartphones. Largest loss maker in the company is the location services, 1.2 billion euro losses.

2. To think that they are not in transition is akin to thinking that apple doesn't make a profit. Besides the obvious announcements, you have official company reports, budgeting, analyst comments and so on. Only someone in a very delusional relationship with reality could deny that nokia is in very clear transition process on multiple levels.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[toriver]

Well, the same question can be directed at companies suing Apple, then - Samsung included. Are they afraid of Apple?

Apple are just practicing "my court, my rules", much like Sony (try to publish a game on the PS Store where DLC can be purchased elsewhere). Some companies (Comixology and other comic book publishers) see enough benefit to accept the 30% as a cost of business, others (like Amazon) decide that their users are used to buy on their site so paying a fee for the extra channel makes no business sense.

Do you also whine about other businesses deciding the rules for their stores, or is this just for Apple's?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Cederic]

I try and be consistent. I dont buy into GFWL or the playstation network. I wont buy books in Kindle format.

I do intend to use Ulta Violet if they successfully implement their published design - they've made some very intelligent and largely reasonable decisions.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[oodaloop]

So, I want to get this straight. They have been selling fewer dumb phones and losing money as a whole, but are going to continue making these phones for the next three years despite abandoning Symbian. Are you paying attention to what you're saying? They're clearly transitioning away from dumb phones, and you're making the argument that they have this market sewn up for the next three years! Are you just trolling me with this nonsense?

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Luckyo]

Yes, they've been selling a "few percent less" of these dumb phones, and are still selling more of them then next top two (or was it next top three) combined.

You know, this is slashdot. Failing to understand basic relativity between numbers is not really normal here.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[LucidBeast]

I've made a simple stopwatch app for Symbian. I entered it into Nokias store when it opened I think 2008. Its sales have actually gone up instead of down even though there has been more competition than in the past. Of course it is the best one in mobile ;), but still I don't think that Symbian is quite dead yet. Besides Nokia is still making most of its smartphone money from Symbian.

Re:Nokia and RIM

[Anonymous Coward]

are you not breaking the fundamental principle of your divine leader - that the quality of a product is knowing it's superior from the inside as much as from the outside? In which case, something like a snappy dual-core processor may not so easily be discarded as "Not a user feature". i'd like to see a technical comparision of h/w specs, display technology, s/w quality & application. It's possible that Apple wins on all counts - but not by saying "not give a shit".

Re:Nokia and RIM

[hobarrera]

When did google LOOSE money?
Android was never even about money; it was about a platform to better push their services.

Who Cares?

[sexconker]

Who cares?
This isn't news for nerds, it's fodder for fanboys.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Yawn.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to disagree ...it's tech worthy news. The more money Apple gets, the more money they have to influence the shape of things to come.

It's good to be aware of the shifts in power and the current status quo regardless of whether you are a fanboi or not.

Re:Who Cares?

[Caerdwyn]

It shows that nerds are wrong and Apple is right.

Seriously, you're confronted with an existence-proof.

Re:Who Cares?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Who cares?

Uhm, shareholders? :-)

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nerds are often arguing about issues that require foresight, something the general public doesn't have when it comes to IT because they're good at other things than us. Freedom is one of the examples of things that don't matter to the public, but may matter later. Which is why we still argue that the 'losing' alternative is superior.

Re:Who Cares?

[ackthpt]

Who cares?
This isn't news for nerds, it's fodder for fanboys.

How can I tell you don't have a stack of Apple stock? Because you are sitting here, creating a post like that.

If you had any stock in them at all you'd be dancing a jig. That's an impressive jump in stock price and evidence the company is still growing.

Two ways to look at this - from a financial investment - looks good! The other, it's that little company that was trounced by Microsoft for years, made cute little computers, but lost the plot and market share and nearly died. Re-invented by Steve Jobs, it's back and badder than ever and from whom more toys will be forthcoming.

Sure wish I had some stock in them...

Re:Who Cares?

[Microlith]

Why should shareholders care? It's not like they're paying dividends, and it's not like it's reasonable or affordable to buy into Apple at the current sky high share price.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true fanboy!

Re:Who Cares?

[arielCo]

abusus non tollit usum

: abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use

That is, fanboyish reactions do not strip the relevance of one of the largest players in a tech industry making more money than ever before, or prevent sane discussion of the fact.

Re:Who Cares?

[dnaumov]

You should learn a few things about investing before making a fool out of yourself. The fact that AAPL shares are above 400$ bares no meaning at all on whether the price is "sky high" or not. Berkshire Hathaway class A shares are over 100,000$ each and their price is not "sky high" either. It's all about the actual valuation metrics of the company relative to the share price and according to them, AAPL was actually pretty fairly priced before the earnings release.

Or are you going to be making even more of a fool out of yourself by sticking to your guns and saying that a PE of 15 for a company with projected 30% revenue growth is "sky high"? Except that it was actually even cheaper then that, because the revenue growth ended up being twice higher.

Re:Who Cares?

[polymeris]

Also I might be a bit slow today, but I don't understand the summary:

Apple's fiscal first quarter represents the most profitable quarter ever recorded. Only one U.S. company has ever posted a more profitable quarter — Exxon [...]

Seems like a contradiction to me. So is it the most profitable quarter in history or not? In the history of what? the US? the world?

Re:Who Cares?

[SuperKendall]

Nerds are often arguing about issues that require foresight

That is exactly right, and why you should place no stock in predictions from those on Slashdot that constant predict Apple's demise for reasons that plainly make no sense and exhibit the continued misunderstanding of the market as a whole.

something the general public doesn't have when it comes to IT because they're good at other things than us.

And yet the general public generally speaking could have told you Apple continues to fare well, just form anecdotal evidence. So should not there be some giant red flags here that nerds En Masse have apparently willfully given up the power of foresight simply because of hatred?

Which is why we still argue that the 'losing' alternative is superior.

You can still argue something is superior while correctly predicting the thing you think is not superior will win out and understanding why. That's what helps you to make the truly superior thing fare well in the market.

But again many nerds here on Slashdot have instead decided over and over again to proclaim Apple is not successful because they say so, and the technologies they favor will win "just because". That is not going to work out well long-term.

Re:Who Cares?

[halivar]

Damn you, dnaumov, now I have to open at least 5 Wikipedia tabs so I can later pretend I understand something about investing.

Lessee... "PE".... 41 matches. This is gonna take a while...

Re:Who Cares?

[MightyMartian]

Translation: The more money they get to try bully competition with spurious but time-consuming lawsuits.

Re:Who Cares?

[SadButTrue]

I would say "kinda". The bigger story isn't the blowout story. For most nerds, it is that a tech company is now the largest company in the world when measured by market cap. Apple passed Exxon in after market trading.

An ancillary story would be the rise of mobile and a potential sea change in how we interact with our computing devices. These are good times for nerds me thinks!

Sorry for sounding a bit like an Apple fanboi. I actually think Apple is bad for nerds long term.

Re:Who Cares?

[icebike]

I'll have to disagree ...it's tech worthy news. The more money Apple gets, the more money they have to influence the shape of things to come.

It's good to be aware of the shifts in power and the current status quo regardless of whether you are a fanboi or not.

The profit levels say nothing about the shape of things to come (other than more law suits).

What the do indicate is the excessive level of profit is cranked into the iphone/ipad line.
By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit. None of the other phone
or tablet makers have this kind of profit margin, yet their products easily match the iOS products
in quality and ease of use.

If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something
else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever.

Re:Who Cares?

[ColdWetDog]

abusus non tollit usum

: abuse does not take away use, i.e., is not an argument against proper use

Quod Latine sonat alta.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you don't like speaking fanboi, I'll translate it to hater for you...

If they can cause as many legal problems as they have with $100m in legal fees, just think how much they can cause with $13b!

Re:Who Cares?

[hedwards]

Maybe or maybe they'd have some hope of being relevant outside of a few niches. Right now they're relevant in the tablet and smartphone markets, I'm guessing that's not going to last too much longer as they're losing in the smartphone market and they're having to resort to patent trolling to protect themselves from competition in the tablet market.

This isn't like a decade ago when they could just misappropriate other people's work and expect to get away with it, they're competing with outfits that generally know how to compete and care about making money.

Re:Who Cares?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

I'll have to disagree ...it's tech worthy news. The more money Apple gets, the more money they have to influence the shape of things to come.

It's good to be aware of the shifts in power and the current status quo regardless of whether you are a fanboi or not.

Speaking of which :
@fmanjoo : "Apple's profits ($13 billion) exceeded Google's entire revenue ($10.6 billion)."

Thought that was pretty mind-blowing since we're all used to thinking of Google as some kind of juggernaut.

Re:Who Cares?

[dnaumov]

PE, more commonly abbreviated as P/E stands for Price/Earnings, usually for (TTM) - the trailing 12 months.

Re:Who Cares?

[hedwards]

You do realize that the PE is based upon current numbers, right. Only idiots by based upon PE, personally, I tend to take into account other things as well such as discounted cashflow, outlook in the industry and ability to protect itself. Apple isn't going to continue pissing everybody off without making the wrong enemies. Just look at how the relatively small number of suits have already snowballed and how Apple is starting to actually lose some of the suits as they go to completion.

Apple fans are loyal, but there's only so far that's going to take them, keep filing patent troll law suits, overprice the gadgets and behave generally like dicks and eventually the bad karma is going to catch up with Apple.

When all is said and done, right now Apple is rather aggressively destroying value as it tilts at windmills. Sure, they might get away with it in the short term or figure out a way of avoiding it in the long, but eventually this sort of behavior catches up with a company.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo ... commie fan boy ...

It's not the point to make a profit ... the point is to make the maximum profit possible ... this Apple succeeds and the rest fail ... Read a basic economics book, will yeah ...

Re:Who Cares?

[Captain Splendid]

Apple's demise for reasons that plainly make no sense and exhibit the continued misunderstanding of the market as a whole.

I know, right? Time was, a man could make a decent wage in the Apple-bashing biz. Hell, back in the mid-90s it literally was this simple:

"Apple is doomed! Just break it up and sell it already!"
*Cashes Cheque*

But with all these record profits, the Apple hating market is just totally dead, a shell of its former self.

Honestly, that's the real story here.

Re:Who Cares?

[Tarlus]

...Which, incidentally, will influence the shape of things to come.

Re:Who Cares?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

None of the other phone or tablet makers have this kind of profit margin, yet their products easily match the iOS products
in quality and ease of use.

1) "match the iOS products in quality and ease of use." We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Most Android phones I've seen (with some very few exceptions) feel cheap, they feel much cheaper than they are in fact.
2) Android makers get the OS for free, remember Apple does more than just sell the hardware. There's R&D, software development, patents to be bought, etc.
3) Even with a free OS, show me the phones and tablets significantly undercutting iOS devices while providing the same quality. And the "going out of business, please buy our inventory" sales don't count.

If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever.

To me calling people "fanbois" and looking down on them because they think "the mainstream is so cool but they don't know what's cool, I know what's cool" just makes you another hipster. Just accept there are people who like something different from you, is that so difficult ? I can see why people like Android or Windows Phone, that doesn't make them idiots or "fanbois" just people with other needs.

Re:Who Cares?

[oxdas]

I have Apple stock and yet I still can't help but be a little sad. Apple makes good products. I own a few and many other people I know have them as well (hence the stock). That said, I like to see winners that are worthy of emulation. Apple hasn't been a good corporate citizen lately. They have tried to drive competition from their markets by less than honorable means. They have not given back to the society that nurtured them. They have not set an example of how to treat your employees, your partners, or your country.

I know it would be considered heresy at American business schools, but I don't believe a company exists only to benefit its shareholders. A company is given many gifts by their society; monopoly on their brand and inventions, protection in trade, infrastructure to distribute their goods, and consumers to buy it. Companies cannot succeed on capitalism alone. Don't misunderstand me, I believe that capitalism is the greatest economic system yet devised because it harnesses our inner greed, but the power of that greed can be self-destructive.

So I guess when I see profits of this magnitude, it makes me a little nervous.

Re:Who Cares?

[larry bagina]

Apple now has $96 billion in cash/equivalents.

Re:Who Cares?

[Cimexus]

I honestly don't think they are losing in the smartphone market. I still see 10 iPhones for every 1 Android device out there. In the US perhaps Android is a bit more competitive (due to your 'phone tied to the carrier' model, it means big phone companies like Verizon and Sprint actively advertise Android phones, which isn't really done anywhere else). But here (Australia), although Android phones are readily available (including some decent ones like the Galaxy S), they still don't sell anywhere near as well as iPhones (keeping in mind that a lot of people buy the phone direct from Apple here, outright, not locked into a carrier or plan or contract etc.)

It may eventually turn out that iPhone falls to less than 50% of the smartphone market (which isn't surprising since Apple is one manufacturer and Android is made by several companies who can combine their forces). But even then I wouldn't qualify that as 'losing' in the market.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the other phone or tablet makers have this kind of profit margin, yet their products easily match the iOS products in quality and ease of use.

That'd be a great point, if customer satisfaction surveys and analysis of support call center numbers didn't suggest the exact opposite of what you've just claimed.

Here's what's funny: the iPad has been competing with similarly priced competitor devices for a while now - devices from Motorla, Samsung, Dell... how is it that those other makers have lower profit margins on their devices (by your own claim), yet Apple could cut the price of the iPad in half and still make a profit?

And the profit levels absolutely do say something about the shape of things to come: the person with the thinnest profit margins is the one who has to start cutting corners on build quality and components to be able to make a profit. The person with the biggest profit margins has some room to reduce their per-unit profit without sacrificing build quality, allowing them to maintain their market share in the face of competitive pressures.

Re:Who Cares?

[diegocg]

If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something
else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever.

So, making things expensive automatically brings you new customers?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't have any sense. Apple is not a luxury brand, most people who buys Apple products probably don't even care about technology.

Re:Who Cares?

[jd2112]

Apple now has $96 billion in cash/equivalents.

Which means that the $100M spent on Android lawsuits accounts for just over 0.1% of their current cash (equivalent) reserves. Barely a blip on the quarterly report.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that Apple got their OS for free too (most of it, anyhow).. since its primarily based on BSD, which they use and then of course contribute little back to the open source community, unlike Google who makes significant contributions to many open source projects

The main reason they sell so many iphones is because a large majority of iphones users are hipsters.. in the sense that most of them are followers who are very image concious and they upgrade every time a new iphone comes out because they feel the need to remain hip or relevant or fashionable or whatever.

My 27 year old sister has had every model of iphone so far, so has my 65 year old father in law (who is an image conscious high powered lawyer), and numerous other non-geek people I know..

Unlike the iPhone, the diversity of android handsets makes it impossible for the average person to judge whether you have the latest and greatest handset, so only those who are hardcore gadget geeks have the compulsion to upgrade frequently.

iPhone is a fashion accessory.. Android is just a phone.

Re:Who Cares?

[poetmatt]

That's 100M in what, 4 months?

the legal costs will escalate for apple far faster than the competition. That's the nature of shakedown attempts.

Re:Who Cares?

[CohibaVancouver]

By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit.

None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...

Re:Who Cares?

[AshtangiMan]

My guess was that they had the highest profit relative to revenue ever recorded in a single quarter, and that only Exxon ever had more profit in dollars in a quarter. But that is only a guess and I don't want to dig into it to figure it out further . . .

Re:Who Cares?

[a_nonamiss]

How do you define losing? The three best selling phones in Q4 among all carriers were: iPhone 4s, iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, in that order. More than half of all phones sold by Verizon in Q4 were iPhones, and they're currently the largest carrier. It would be safe to assume that the numbers would be at least similar with AT&T and Sprint, although they have not published their numbers.

If that's your version of "losing in the smart phone market" then how would you define winning?

Re:Who Cares?

[icebike]

It may not make sense to you, but it sure make sense to apple fans.
If they didn't care about technology they wouldn't buy every new phone apple puts out.

Making things expensive has ALWAYS brought new customers and repeat customers. If the product in question is anything other than a commodity, raising the price, and thereby implying a better product always sells well.

Re:Who Cares?

[MikeMo]

Well, according to the post-release interview, the iTunes store generated $1.7 billion during Q112, so that would be a pretty neat trick. They also state that Gross margin was 44.7%. Have you not noticed all the articles about how they buy up the supplies of everything, and all the other manufacturers are struggling to match Apple's prices?

Re:Who Cares?

[steve_bryan]

"...That's the nature of shakedown attempts."

I don't think you understand the nature of Apple's litigation. Last I heard Apple was not interested in licensing any technology they claim (i.e. shakedown), they want to force competitors to find work arounds. It's a bit like the scene in Goldfinger when Bond has an industrial laser beam about to cut him in half. He says, "I suppose you expect me to talk" and Goldfinger replies "No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!".

Re:Who Cares?

[icebike]

By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit.

None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...

Everything I've ever read about the app store suggests that it runs at very little profit. Apple has stated as much in their 10K.
They run it to support device sales, and device sales are their bread and butter.

The profit margin on an iPhone is almost twice what the competition enjoys. Close to 60% pure profit.
Its been this way for a long time. Check this CNN-Money article.
iPhone sales have crept up from about 30% of Apples Gross to about 50%.

iTunes is the loss leader, not the iPhone or iPad.

Re:Who Cares?

[steve_bryan]

I think they meant it was Apple's most profitable quarter ever and the second most profitable for any US company.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll need a source for that, since my own places the iPhone 4s at third, (SII at first, Nexus at second), the iPhone 4 at 9th, and the 3GS at 34th. The Lumia 800 places 4th, though the next WP after that is the Lumia 710 at 53rd.

Re:Who Cares?

[symbolset]

That's a boatload of cash. No, literally, a large boat load of hundred dollar bills. And it looks like they're going to need a bigger boat. That's like 1,200 congresses.

Re:Who Cares?

[timeOday]

I'll have to disagree ...it's tech worthy news. The more money Apple gets, the more money they have to influence the shape of things to come.

What I think is interesting is that the biggest profit for a company ever, except Exxon Q3 2008, came from consumer electronics. You might thing bigger-ticket items like cars or airliners or $350M per-copy fighter jets would have more room for profits. Or scamming Wall Street. Even if you limit it to IT, you might assume selling to corporations or government is the most profitable.

Nope! The biggest profits ever, save only Exxon Q3 2008, came from selling nothing that cost over a few hundred bucks, to a huge number of people.

Re:Who Cares?

[mosb1000]

Apple has surpassed Exxon several times in the last year. The reverse is also true.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

remember Apple does more than just sell the hardware. There's R&D, software development, patents to be bought, etc.

All of which shows up in their profit numbers, so I'm not sure what point you were making. In fact it makes the obscenity of their profits that much worse that they can do all of those things and still end up with an obscene number.

Re:Who Cares?

[Algae_94]

Let's think about this for a moment. Exxon and Apple are approximately the same "size" as measured by market capitalization. Imagine what would the world be like if Apple just vanished overnight. Now, imagine if Exxon vanished overnight. Does it not make sense to anyone else that Exxon should be far more valuable? They drill, refine and ship oil and petroleum products that are used in damn near everything man does on Earth. Apple makes computers, smart phones, and tablets. It would be hard to live without computers, but I could do that a lot easier than without oil.

I know the fundamentals of AAPL back up its valuation. So maybe, the purchase habits of consumers in our society have gotten way out of whack with reality.

Re:Who Cares?

[sgbett]

The fact you can raise a price to imply a better product, does not mean that expensive products are not better.

By there very nature better products will often cost more to produce.

People really struggle to separate price and value.

Re:Who Cares?

[SadButTrue]

Right, but this is not a small move. They were roughly equal value only varying by noise.

Re:Who Cares?

[SadButTrue]

No doubt, because you could just use a Windows PC or Android phone/tablet and be pretty close to where you were. Of course the same could be said for Exxon. Royal Dutch, BP and Chevron all make fossil fuel derivatives that aren't just similar to Exxon but identical.

Re:Who Cares?

[Graff]

What the do indicate is the excessive level of profit is cranked into the iphone/ipad line.
By my estimate they could cut the price in half and still make a profit.

Apple struggles to keep up with demand as it is and they continually expand their production capabilities. Rest assured that there are bean counters in Apple that do the price/demand/production calculation and come up with the best fit.

As far as a high price contributing to a "cool factor" there is no doubt that it contributes to the allure for some people. However, there are also a lot of people who buy on the "cheap trumps quality" factor. In the end it's the balance between price and features that wins out overall. There's no doubt that Apple is doing just fine there, their sales speak to that.

Re:Who Cares?

[Graff]

Don't forget that Apple got their OS for free too (most of it, anyhow).. since its primarily based on BSD, which they use and then of course contribute little back to the open source community, unlike Google who makes significant contributions to many open source projects

Oh really?

It looks like Apple contributes quite a few open source projects.

Re:Who Cares?

[Luke727]

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one. - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

Re:Who Cares?

[DinDaddy]

If you don't have $500 to invest in the market, I don't know what to tell you.

Re:Who Cares?

[R3d M3rcury]

Depends. If you're arguing this proves that Apple is somehow "The Best", I would disagree.

Keep in mind that money and market share don't necessarily equate to being the best. Microsoft is the obvious example, but I prefer McDonalds. McDonalds makes more money than other burger chains--does this mean they make the best hamburgers? I believe that GM is the #1 automobile dealer here in the US--does this mean that GM's cars are the best cars on the road?

Apple makes good products, don't get me wrong. I'm a satisfied iPhone and Mac owner and I've been a Mac developer for nigh-on 20 years. Where Apple has excelled in recent years is in marketing. Whether we're talking about Apple Bunnysuit Ads or the Super computer ads to the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads, Apple's advertising is top-notch and they're able to convince people that anything that's new is something Apple has invented.

A fun example of this is the "Rip, Mix, Burn" ad. While you'd been able to burn a music CD for quite some time (on a Mac or a PC), Apple was the first to really push this capability in a way that caught the public's eye (using real performers rather than some announcer who just mentions it in the middle of Dell ad).

Re:Who Cares?

[sydneyfong]

But again many nerds here on Slashdot have instead decided over and over again to proclaim Apple is not successful because they say so, and the technologies they favor will win "just because". That is not going to work out well long-term.

"Who cares?"

I think that aptly summarizes the attitude of the haters here.

Re:Who Cares?

[phantomfive]

How long have you been saying this? Has it been as long as Apple stock has been going up?

Re:Who Cares?

[sydneyfong]

I take your points, but I've always wondered why society tries to tell the corporations to "be good", instead of legislating "good behavior", or creating incentives for them to do so?

It seems much easier that way.

Re:Who Cares?

[aristotle-dude]

Who cares?
This isn't news for nerds, it's fodder for fanboys.

You cared enough to bother to sign in and post. If you truly did not care then you would not have "wasted" your time.

Re:Who Cares?

[sosume]

The day will come where consumers get iTired and ditch their iPhones en masse, that is just textbook mass psychology. I presume that this is what MS has been waiting for with their tardy WP7 rollout.

Re:Who Cares?

[icebike]

Have you been off planet for a while?
Android already exceed 50% of smartphone sales, and Apple is hovering around 26%.

Re:Who Cares?

[CrackedButter]

Apples posts highest quarter in tech history and Apple is still losing. What are you smoking I want some.

Re:Who Cares?

[thegarbz]

2) Android makers get the OS for free, remember Apple does more than just sell the hardware. There's R&D, software development, patents to be bought, etc.
3) Even with a free OS, show me the phones and tablets significantly undercutting iOS devices while providing the same quality. And the "going out of business, please buy our inventory" sales don't count.

HAHAHAHAH HAHAHA Haaaa, Oh wait you were serious weren't you?

Let me clue you in on something. There isn't a single manufacturer which takes the free Android loads it on a piece of their hardware, and then sends it off out the door. NOT ONE! ... Wait Samsung could fit that bill given they've done the recent Nexus phones, but that only applies to their Nexus phone.

The vast majority of companies build hardware (non trivial R&D cost), get Android, work with contractors and coders to get the drivers going for their phone (non trivial R&D cost), spend loads of money on giving the device a personalised design or look and feel (a non trivial R&D cost), licence all manner of custom software that is preloaded on the phone like GPS system, widgets, etc, (ok this is a trivial cost), and then often go all out to completely replace core things like the damn user interface with their own custom app like TouchWiz (definitely a non-trivial R&D cost).

But by all means keep believing that because Android is given away freely by the AOSP that it costs nothing to use. It gives the rest of us quite a chuckle.

Re:Who Cares?

[toruonu]

Why the hell would Apple slash prices? They aren't at supply-demand equilibrium if you listened to the earnings call. They expected higher than usual sales and prepared with a gamble on producing tons more iPhones than previously and hoped it would pay off. The result was that they still sold out in days and were producing at maximum capacity and still had demand higher than supply lines. So there is no incentive to reduce the price from any economics point of view. There's actually incentive to RAISE the price to bring the equilibrium lower, but that has long term effects so it's better to operate at current levels and expand production capacity.

That also means there's STILL a huge demand going into the next quarter and Apple's own guidance is well above the street estimate (which was optimistic) for the next quarter even though it's the slowest of them and is shorter this time around by 1 week (the blowout quarter was longer by 1 week in turn).

So stop the bashing because you're not happy with the price, from an economic point of view Apple's doing it right and the market agrees.

Re:Who Cares?

[toruonu]

And there will always be people who will continue to claim that the happy run ends tomorrow. They've been doing that since AAPL was 70$ and somehow it doesn't happen. You have to understand the experience before you get why the return customer rate is 94+%. It's not a fanboism or cool factor (that may sometimes be the inital thing that gets you to the product at least to check it out). It's the actual quality and ease of use. Believe me 99% of populace couldn't care less what CPU the thing runs on or how many MP the camera has as long as it runs and does the things he/she needs and produces results. It's the geeks that squirm because it's not latest/greatest tech, but most of the time there's good reason for it. Take 4G for example. The network might even be getting there (I for one have 4G at home and benefit from it greatly for home network), but the current generation of 4G chips require a dedicated chip and draw quite a lot of power so you trade possible faster download speeds (and hype) for battery life. The next iDevices will have 4G because qualcomm has now a chip that can do most of the wireless stuff in one chip and the batter drain is less. That wasn't there yet for 4S and hence no LTE. The Android makers just wanted to scream WE'VE GOT 4G so they made it with no due consideration to end-user satisfaction (and I doubt you're satisfied with a half-day battery life on 4G).

Go use iDevices for 1 month and come back claiming you still don't understand the phenomenon...

Re:Who Cares?

[linhux]

Don't forget that Apple got their OS for free too (most of it, anyhow).. since its primarily based on BSD

Can you define "primarily based"? The BSD subsystem may be an important part of Mac OS X but it is relatively small in terms of all code that makes up the operating system. It is just over 50% of the xnu 1699.24.8 kernel source code (25 MB out of 47 MB), but what a normal Mac program sees is mainly the Cocoa runtime, which is quite far removed from BSD and is many times the BSD subsystem in size. Kernel drivers and low-level software interfaces with IOKit and the Mach subsystem rather than the BSD parts.

Re:Who Cares?

[gtall]

Imagine the poor Apple executives watching their loot pile up. They look around, see your slashdot post and say to each other, "Gee, we should cut our prices by half and we'd still make a profit...Holy Shazzam, Batman, what were we thinking!"

Re:Who Cares?

[gtall]

Since corporations acquired citizen's rights like contributing to political campaigns and such. Take those away and we'll stop pulling C. Everett Koop faces on them, we promise.

Re:Who Cares?

[Cimexus]

The stats may say that (is that globally, btw?), but in day to day life, as I said, I still see way more iPhones than anything else, at least in this part of the world. My suspicion is that a lot of Android sales are corporate (the phones my work provides are Androids for instance, and we are a big (100,000+ employee) company).

Re:Who Cares?

[Swampash]

by all means keep believing that because Android is given away freely by the AOSP that it costs nothing to use.

Hell no, not with the licensing fees they have to pay to Microsoft to use Android.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

--dancing jig--

YAY!

Re:Who Cares?

[UnknowingFool]

None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...

Maybe if you read Apple's press release where they also release the summarized data. Then apply some logic.

Company posted record quarterly revenue of $46.33 billion and record quarterly net profit of $13.06 billion . . . Gross margin was 44.7 percent compared to 38.5 percent in the year-ago quarter.

The iTunes store (and iPod accessories) made $2.0B in revenue (not profit) while Apple made $13B in profit for the entire company. There's no way Apple makes most of it's money in their online stores. Also remember that number is revenue before Apple has to give their 70% cut. So in reality, Apple only took in at most $600M in revenue before they factor in their costs.

Re:Who Cares?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

But by all means keep believing that because Android is given away freely by the AOSP that it costs nothing to use. It gives the rest of us quite a chuckle.

Not nothing just significantly less then doing ALL of it. Just like running a company like Ubuntu is cheaper than running Microsoft. Sure, both do a non-trivial amount of work but only one does the whole thing from the ground up.

Re:Who Cares?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Ha, I can beat that: http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/24/technology/apple_earnings/index.htm?on.cnn=1

It was one of the most profitable quarters ever for any U.S. company, trailing only ExxonMobil's (XOM, Fortune 500) record-setting $14.8 billion quarter from the fall of 2008, when oil prices were at an all-time high.

Re:Who Cares?

[jo_ham]

See this pie chart for the breakdown of profit, according to Apple's own numbers:

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/01/appleq112bottomchart.jpg

The iTunes store is a very small piece of the puzzle.

Re:Who Cares?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/apple-stock-slump-shows-hyper-growth-is-over-chart-of-the-day.html

y David Wilson - Fri Nov 18 05:00:01 GMT 2011

Anyone who expects Apple Inc.’s growth to rebound after sales and earnings shortfalls last quarter is “living in denial,” according to David Nelson, chief strategist at Belpointe Asset Management LLC.

I wonder if someone wants his money back.

Re:Who Cares?

[CharlyFoxtrot]

The day will come where consumers get iTired and ditch their iPhones en masse, that is just textbook mass psychology. I presume that this is what MS has been waiting for with their tardy WP7 rollout.

That's what people said about the iPod too.

Re:Who Cares?

[jbolden]

None of the articles cited state the profit margin on the hardware, which I suspect is quite low. The profit is all in the app store and iTunes store...

No the profit is on hardware. They don't make much from the app store or iTunes store yet. Longer terms as the hardware profits dry up this might become an important revenue source. Now on the iPad where the hardware profits are lower and the apps more expensive the share is much higher.

Re:Who Cares?

[jbolden]

The biggest profits ever, save only Exxon Q3 2008, came from selling nothing that cost over a few hundred bucks, to a huge number of people.

Pretty much Exxon makes their money selling nothing that cost over a few hundred bucks, to a huge number of people.

Re:Who Cares?

[hedwards]

The problem is groupthink. As long as you can find one sucker to pay an extra dollar for a stock the price will go up on all of them. In terms of the earnings as long as they can find suckers that are wiling to overpay for the product they'll keep making profit.

With Steve gone and the very real possibility that their suppliers are going to be unhappy getting sued, they could very well see their components getting a tad difficult to procure.

Plus, they've been on thin ice as far as antitrust matters are concerned for quite a while with the shenanigans at the ITMS and more recently with the way they handle the Appstore.

Sure, they could keep going up, but in practices companies don't keep going up indefinitely, and there's a pretty clear bubble forming. As an investor I don't want anything to do with it and neither do other investors. Now if you're a speculator, fine go and buy it up, but that just reinforces my point that it's a sucker bet. Most of the price rise has already occurred and there's a ton of risk. If I knew when it was going to correct itself I'd be shorting it, but in practice it's incredibly hard to identify the date when the delusion is no longer sustainable.

Re:Who Cares?

[phantomfive]

The problem is groupthink.

Ha, all those sheeple, not realizing you are right, eh?

You've gotta be careful man, you're getting close to fanboy logic. That is, you are looking at all the points that support your opinion, without looking at the the things that go against your opinion. I used to do that too, I knew that Windows was such a crappy operating system, I was sure people would realize it and switch away, and MSFT would drop like a rock. Now I've woken up and realize people are OK with Windows, and MSFT keeps going up.

Just as a sample, there are a lot of factors in AAPL's favor. They have a cash supply equal to 25% of their market capitalization (more than the total value of 95% companies on the stock market). Surely that pile will grow even more before people wake up and realize the Walled Garden is a bad thing. Apple has started expanding into Europe and Asia. No doubt they will find suckers to fall for their marketing practices there, with potential to actually double their sales. The stock is not expensive either, with a P/E ratio close to MSFT's. And you never know, some people might actually think Apple computers and phones are worth the price.

In short, make sure you don't use fanboy logic. Try to look harder for arguments against your main point, than you do arguments in favor.

Re:Who Cares?

[poetmatt]

Doesn't really matter considering that they haven't had to work around any of the technology, entirely.

Apple hasn't really held up a single claim successfully in court thus far against others - so they've merely tried to make people "comply" with things they claim to own, even when they don't. So that 100M costs their competitor approximately zero.

In fact, what's the one time they actually supported the competition and themselves? When they defended themselves against psystar. You'd think apple would remember that defending themselves is more useful than going on the litigation spree.

Re:Who Cares?

[blueg3]

Mac OS X has a BSD subsystem, but most of that isn't present in iOS. Both systems, as far as I know, use the xnu kernel, which is a modified Mach (which is not BSD). It's a little disingenuous to say that it's "primarily based on BSD", though. A number of core components (Darwin) are open-source -- either derived from existing open-source projects (like WebKit) or new projects made open-source by Apple. That accounts for only a small component of the operating system, though. The majority of the frameworks are not open-source, and it's these that provide the features that developers actually use.

Re:Who Cares?

[blueg3]

Sure, but how much money is in a business is not well-correlated to how essential it is. Ask a farmer.

Re:Who Cares?

[ceoyoyo]

Sure. It's already happening to the iPod.

Except they're ditching their iPods for iPhones. Which is probably why Apple keeps so much cash on hand... so they can invent the iNeXT.

Re:Who Cares?

[ceoyoyo]

"If apple cut their prices the "cool factor" would be diminished, and the fanbois would move onto something
else. If they aren't over paying top dollar its just obviously not the best thing ever."

The iPhone 3GS is free with most contracts now. It's the third best selling smart phone in the US, right behind the 4S and the 4.

Re:Who Cares?

[ceoyoyo]

Google is a juggernaut. 10 billion in revenue is a LOT for an advertising company.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right "poetmatt", you know this because of your vast corporate and legal services experience. What a maroon.

Re:Who Cares?

[ceoyoyo]

Only idiots invest on emotion. The majority of phone buyers don't care which big company is suing which. Apple products are priced fairly well in line with competitors - lower, in some cases, if you believe those competitors, who claim much of their failure to compete is due to Apple's supply chain dominance.

YOU don't like Apple. So don't invest in them - more people should demonstrate integrity in their investments. But don't pretend Apple is doomed because of your personal feelings.

Re:Who Cares?

[w_dragon]

Google makes nearly all their money from advertising. While they are a juggernaut in terms of the number of areas they are active in or investing in, they mostly give their products away to get people to look at ads. Apple on the other hand has a near monopoly in one area (MP3 players), and is in the top 2 companies in at least 3 others (MP3 store, tablets, touchphones). And that's before you look at their desktop and laptop lines, where they aren't the market leader. It shouldn't be surprising that Apple makes more money than Google.

Re:Who Cares?

[ceoyoyo]

"imagine if Exxon vanished overnight"

Okay. Exxon is gone. One of the bazillion other oil companies, big or small, steps in and continues pumping oil.

Exxon is a commodity supplier. They're a very large one, but provided the handoff was done smoothly they could be replaced by any number of others and nobody would even know the difference.

Re:Who Cares?

[steve_bryan]

"When they defended themselves against psystar"

What? Apple didn't defend themselves against Psystar in the legal sense. They sued Psystar to prevent Psystar from selling computers with Mac OS X pre-installed. It took quite a while to successfully litigate (these cases can be drawn out) but Psystar did lose and it appears to no longer be in business. Are you thinking of some other case?

Apple in its earlier years, like Google more recently, seemed to be less interested in playing the copyright/patent game that established players tend to favor. In the 80's they saw what they considered their innovations pilfered by competitors and they were unprepared for the legal battles. If you recall the keynote speech by Steve Jobs announcing the iPhone, he spent considerable time making it clear Apple had applied for many patents to defend what he saw as Apple's innovations in this case. He also made clear that Apple was prepared to successfully defend its position this time. These sorts of battles are long and drawn out. Don't expect it to end anytime soon.

Personally I think this sort of activity is less than optimal but as long as the laws are in place I expect corporations to continue these battles. What is sorely needed is comprehensive patent reform. Expecting individual companies to abstain is naive. They know they will get eaten alive.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is nothing new. The average tech nerd has been wrong when it comes to the general consumer market for decades. I think it comes from a false sense of superiority blinding them to the facts.

Specifically with Apple recently, when the iPad was announced all the tech nerds hated it. I immediately posted on my Facebook that it was going to be a success due to the fact that the nerds hate it. When Apple TV was announced, nerds for the most part didn't care, I figured it was going to be badly received (the first gen was). Haven't seen anything the nerds like from Apple in a while so I haven't found out if they nerds love it that it will be a complete and resounding failure.

Re:Who Cares?

[felipekk]

We're talking about finance here. It doesn't matter directly if your industry is "good" or "bad", "useful" or "futile". What matters is the uncertainty and the trends around this industry, thus influencing where "people" wanna invest in this industry or not (same thing replacing industry with company).

Re:Who Cares?

[Gilmoure]

Exctly!

Re:Who Cares?

[Gilmoure]

No, no, no, you're doin' it all wrong. It's Apple is beleaguered! .

Kids these days.

Re:Who Cares?

[toriver]

I don't think he has been to China or India where most of those Android sales take place. In the rich world iPhone rules the roost.

Re:Who Cares?

[toriver]

You so need to read about "The Seven Sisters".

Hint: The oil is there whether a company called Exxon drills it or someone else does.

Re:Who Cares?

[icebike]

read it and weep fanboi: http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/14/shocker-android-grew-us-market-share-after-q2-ios-was-static/

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I think you're just not thinking it through far enough. If Exxon disappeared overnight another company would step in immediately - it's a commodities market. If Apple disappeared overnight, no one would be able to step in. Oh the market would go somewhere, no doubt, but the same products would not be available.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to understand high finance, and all I got was P/E on my face.

Re:Who Cares?

[toriver]

Well, there's plenty of catching up to do, given that there is an endless stream of these Android phones and just the occasional (read: yearly) release of a new iPhone... I am also amazed how a market split five-ways suddenly is "one" when it comes to Android, as if a HTC device sold somehow benefited Samsung.

Re:Who Cares?

[icebike]

I'm also amazed at how many times that ridiculous argument is raised.

If apple licensed their OS to other manufacturers THEN it might have some merit.

What matters is Andorid is eating Apples lunch. It doesn't matter if its being eaten by one company or 10 companies. The world has voted, and it is swinging away from iOS.

And in next quarter's results this will be even more evident as they will not include all of the iphone users going thru their once-a-year-every-year replacement.

Re:Who Cares?

[the_B0fh]

Which android phone has full encryption of the device and a native ipsec client?

Of all the android phones on the market, which is running the latest ice cream sandwich, and why aren't the others capable of being updated to ICSW?

Thanks.

Re:Who Cares?

[toriver]

Ah, the "zero sum" argument. That the total number of potential buyers has been reached so that every sale is a conversion instead of growing the total market.

And yes, it does matter whether that is one company or ten, unless you somehow believe that there is a common "Android pool" of revenue that the multiple manufacturers share.

WebOS

[slashgrim]

As a WebOS fan, this makes me sad. Why would HP give up on such an incredibly profitable market after only investing $3.3billion http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/21/hps-failed-webos-experiment-cost-them-3-3-billion-but-whats-next/ ? The iOS and Andriod user experiences still have not passed WebOS smoothness, in my opinion, though the notification systems are catching up.

Although HP's management style of WebOS reminded me of: "They say you gotta spend money to make money. I don’t know what went wrong. We spent all our money." - Tom Haverford

Re:WebOS

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would HP give up on such an incredibly profitable market after only investing $3.3billion...

Because they weren't profiting.

Expect...

[ackthpt]

Expect some of those profits being rolled into further efforts to battle back Android and secure a future for Apple.

Also expect more headlines in Slashdot regarding how they are spending it.

Re:Expect...

[Bovius]

In related news:

Apple spent a tiny, tiny portion of their profits bludgeoning their competition in patent litigation.

$100 million sure sounds like a lot until you see how much they make.

Re:Expect...

[Anonymous Coward]

They spent $100m in Q1 on Android litigation if you believe Gizmodo. That's a rounding error on the balance sheet.

Re:Expect...

[ackthpt]

In related news:

Apple spent a tiny, tiny portion of their profits bludgeoning their competition in patent litigation.

$100 million sure sounds like a lot until you see how much they make.

Which is why I mentioned it. If you are on the other side of Highway 101, at a certain company you are probably cringing at this turn of fortunes.

Why not do evil? It evidently pays very, very well.

Re:Expect...

[SadButTrue]

Or not spending it. Apple is notorious in investment circles for their lack of spending. Their cash on hand has now become a real issue. I think the stat I heard just after the conference call was they now have move cash on hand than the market value of the bottom 400 of the S&P 500 COMBINED. Amazing stuff really.

Re:Expect...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's cash on hand has become an issue for a bunch of dividend vultures who expect to be able to buy Apple stock at the right time, hoover up the dividend, and then bail. When they buy, thinking that "well NOW Apple's got to pay out SOMETHING after that quarter" and then Apple doesn't pay the dividend, they feel betrayed at the loss of their hoped-for unearned windfall, and they start screaming "we're the owners! we deserve a cut!" when in reality they weren't there for the long haul and have no interest in the company other than a quick cash grab.

Re:Expect...

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

If you are on the other side of Highway 101, at a certain company you are probably cringing at this turn of fortunes.

Why not do evil? It evidently pays very, very well.

Errm, where have you been the last couple of years? That certain company is already not only doing evil, it's doing their very best to kill themselves by turning on everything that made them great.

Re:Expect...

[Cederic]

Indeed. If only the markets could compensate for this behaviour somehow, such as factoring anticipated dividend payments into the share price.

Bubble?

[djlemma]

I can't help that think with record breaking profits like this, there has to be some sort of bubble that's about to burst. Maybe it's paranoia brought about by the current economy, but goodness.. $13 billion in profit? More than 25% of their revenue is profit? Something is going on here..

Re:Bubble?

[Wyatt Earp]

Selling mp3s, apps and movies doesn't have a ton of costs.

Re:Bubble?

[spyder-implee]

The workers committing suicide in their Chinese factories know what's going on there...

Re:Bubble?

[ackthpt]

I can't help that think with record breaking profits like this, there has to be some sort of bubble that's about to burst. Maybe it's paranoia brought about by the current economy, but goodness.. $13 billion in profit? More than 25% of their revenue is profit? Something is going on here..

They are building all their products in China. What's so hard to figure about this? OK, Foxconn will now pay the workers a few Renminbi more, per hour, but don't expect that to dent the profit margin much.

Re:Bubble?

[vakuona]

Nothing lasts forever. But Apple have put together a quite amazing run. If Apple were to shut down tomorrow, and distribute all of its cash as dividends, it would be returning 100bn to its investors, and for anyone who invested in Apple 10 years ago, they would be getting a stupidly large return. That for what was already a mature company.

Re:Bubble?

[djlemma]

The press release doesn't really mention much about iTunes sales. Mostly it's talking about the MASSIVE number of iPhones they sold, and huge increases in almost every other hardware product over this quarter last year (except for the iPod). 37 million iPhones is equivalent to quite a lot of mp3's....

Re:Bubble?

[Darkness404]

Of course it is a bubble. Apple is currently the only company that can charge huge margins for their tech because they are looked at as the best. If you want quality, the masses think, you need to get a Mac/iPod/iPad/etc. Of course if Apple slips up like they did back in the 90s and slips backwards of course they won't be as profitable. But, at the moment, everyone thinks Apple has very high quality products. If they really do or don't, it is irrelevant. The fact is, the masses think that its made by Apple, it has to be good. Couple this with having large revenues per product makes Apple super profitable. Compare it to most technology companies that operate on razor thin profit margins and powerful hardware and sell it to the masses.

Re:Bubble?

[DogDude]

Something is going on here..

The only thing going on is that people are suckers for slick marketing and consumerism in general. They are making a massive profit because they are able to charge several multiples over their competition for the same hardware.

Re:Bubble?

[Dzimas]

I paid $70 for an unsubsidized low-end LG android phone at Christmas. It's not a bad phone, and I suspect Apple's jaw-dropping profit margin is going to get hit as Samsung, LG and Moto push out some extremely capable phones in the sub-$300 range. That said, Apple has two things going for them -- (1) a closed iOS ecosystem that encourages people to remain on their platform, and (2) Profitable multi-year contract arrangements with the telcos that allow them to market "$149" handsets with the true cost hidden in multi-thousand dollar contracts.

Re:Bubble?

[geekoid]

It's because they can expand services and not have to raise their overhead that much.

Re:Bubble?

[MikeMo]

Cite please.

Re:Bubble?

[FunnyStrange]

They make very little from the software/media sales. Gross margins on the hardware are huge though: 44.7%. Tim Cook indicated in the conference call that that's probably not a sustainable number (their margins are typically in the high 30s). But the raw numbers of devices they sold grew by stunning amounts. Even Mac volumes rose by more than 25%, and that's in a PC industry that's not doing that well in aggregate.

Say what you want pro or con about their products, but they know how to make stuff that people want to buy.

Case in point: Verizon reported that iPhones accounted for 55% of their smartphone sales last quarter. That's against how many different models of Android phone?

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing going on is that people are suckers for slick marketing and consumerism in general.

So that's why on a daily basis, I see more android commercials than apple commercials.

Re:Bubble?

[0123456]

3. Fanboys who'll buy anything with an Apple logo on it.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You could have had an iPhone 3GS for free, or an iPhone 4 for $100. "Penny-wise, pound-foolish" comes to mind.

Re:Bubble?

[djlemma]

Apple isn't the only company building things in China, but somehow they've managed to be the most profitable about it. If "Made In China" was the only requisite for extreme profits, then I think there would be a lot more "99 cent" stores dominating the stock market.

Re:Bubble?

[stms]

It probably is just paranoia. The reason for a bubble is prices no longer represent real world value. Contrary to the popular opinion on /. a lot of people like their iPhones which gives them value. So unless for some reason people stop liking their iphones (which seems unlikely) there's no bubble here.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL yeah, except for getting the life jewed out of you in a 2 yr contract. I'll take my used phone and 34$ monthly bill plz. Carry on subsidizing me. K THX BYE

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a free iPhone 3S. I bought a Galaxy soon after. Worst free phone ever

Re:Bubble?

[jo_ham]

They make almost nothing on those things - practically noise in the data as far as profit goes.

The vast, vast bulk of their profits are in hardware sales.

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

Take a look at this chart.

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/01/appleq112topchart.jpg

The orange strip is revenue from downloads. Sure Apple makes money from them, but it's dwarfed by the money they make from hardware.

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

The Foxconn factory complex in question has a lower suicide rate than the overall suicide rate for China. When you have half a million employees in the same city, some of them are gong to commit suicide. If you have half a million humans in the same city, some of them are going to commit suicide.

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

And the number of "fanboys" appear to grow exponentially each quarter, judging by the financial results. How exactly do you imagine that Apple manages to keep on getting all these new fans?

WARNING: This question actually requires you to think. Be careful. Do some warm ups first.

Re:Bubble?

[SadButTrue]

The only number I heard about iTunes was that it was 1.5X the entire revenue of Yahoo! who reported just before Apple.

Re:Bubble?

[the_B0fh]

You think as if all consumers are idiots and will put down good hard earned money for shitty products.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Fanboys who love the tech so much that as soon as a new model is announced, they throw the old model in the bin, and que up for the next one, the tech is so brilliant that they can't wait to spend more money replacing devices.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buzz off whiner. Go to the back room and please kick your own ass several times until you feel better for not getting on the AAPL bandwagon.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point: Verizon reported that iPhones accounted for 55% of their smartphone sales last quarter. That's against how many different models of Android phone?

I think one of the reasons behind Apple's success is the limited variance. They make a few models of each device, and generally a good/better/best option for each (iPhone: 4S/4/3GS; iPad: 16/32/64 GB). For every other manufacturer out there, you have a half dozen different models to choose from.

So when it comes it manufacturing time, the limited variance allows for buying of mass quantities of components at value discounts. As opposed to other every other OEM where when order a manufacturing run it's a certain quantity of X, a certain quantity of Y, a certain quantity of Z, etc.

And then they changes models after six months and have to start over, whereas Apple is willing to keep a design for over 12 months, and thus recoup dev costs much more easily.

Apple is able to ship the quantities they have at the prices they do because they do actually care about design (i.e., not how it "looks" but the insides and such), and are not just a marketing company like many people claim.

Re:Bubble?

[rsborg]

If you want quality, the masses think, you need to get a Mac/iPod/iPad/etc.

I love this "the masses think" remark, because it exposes your elitism as well as lack of touch. Many famous and prolific hackers use Macs/iPhones/iPads. Are they the "masses" that you speak of?

Recently I've had to use a non-mac (Thinkpad) for my work laptop... and it chafes. Not only would I be more productive with OSX, the hardware itself is archaic. It contains an optical drive that I never use (think: all software and licensing in large companies are now automated - no discs necessary). It weighs more than the equivalent Mac, and it occasionally stalls at random intervals. I would switch back in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.

It's more than just "fashion" as most Apple-crtics deride - it's design. Both hardware and software. Sure it may not have the latest features or be as fast as the competition, but the reason for that is often that Apple couldn't find a way to do it and keep the size/heat/battery profiles within reasonable bounds (with exceptions.: BlueRay).

Re:Bubble?

[Your.Master]

You're talking about different things. Revenues are independent of costs, and the GP was talking about costs.

Still, combined with reports that gross margins on hardware range from high 30s to mid 40s, the profit still looks significantly higher than those revenues.

Re:Bubble?

[Darkness404]

...And there are still just as many who don't. Its a catch-22 here on /.

If you post Macs are quality you are going to get attacked by people who don't like using Macs.

If you post that Macs aren't quality you are going to get attacked by Apple fanboys.

So in my post I used a neutral and factually correct term to avoid a flamewar, because, if you asked the masses they would generally say that Macs are quality machines.

My own views of Apple are irrelevant to my post and your views on Apple are too. We are talking about that Apple has sky high profitability. Not that X user likes using a Mac. That doesn't matter. There were famous Mac users back when Apple almost went bankrupt. What matters is that the masses are embracing Apple.

Re:Bubble?

[LBArrettAnderson]

I love this "the masses think" remark, because it exposes your elitism as well as lack of touch.
 
And the rest of your comment demonstrates your own elitism and lack of touch. Seriously, read your own comment. Since you don't use an optical drive, it's archaic? Since you're more productive with OSX, everyone else is as well? (I regularly use both OS X and Windows, by the way, and I'm far more productive on Windows).

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

You're talking about different things. Revenues are independent of costs, and the GP was talking about costs.

Of course. But he was offering up the low costs of downloads as the reason for Apple's profits. I'm pointing out that downloads are too small a part of Apple's business for that to be the case. They are making the bulk of their profits on hardware.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK .... thinking.....does this mean it's OK to prefer Microsoft products now on Slashdot?

Yeah, that's the best I can do.

Re:Bubble?

[elashish14]

Case in point: Verizon reported that iPhones accounted for 55% of their smartphone sales last quarter. That's against how many different models of Android phone?

And the reason for this is the same reason why Android made it into the market. I bet you 80% of those Iphone purchases were from people who wanted an Iphone but decided not to get one because Apple wanted to lock them into AT&T. And thus, Android was born.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some would say that a $0 Iphone is worth less than a $100 Android phone.

Re:Bubble?

[artor3]

I've always wondered about this statistic.

When you compare a single company to a country, you have to consider demographic differences. For example, suicide rates are generally higher among the unemployed, among the mentally unstable, among the elderly, etc.

Foxconn employs people who are young, healthy, sane, not on drugs, and (obviously) gainfully employed. What is the national rate among that demographic, and how does Foxconn's rate compare? My guess is not favorably.

Re:Bubble?

[4phun]

And the number of "fanboys" appear to grow exponentially each quarter, judging by the financial results. How exactly do you imagine that Apple manages to keep on getting all these new fans?

WARNING: This question actually requires you to think.

Be careful.

Do some warm ups first.

You definitely have a future in writing for the best of the comedians if your tech job fails.

Re:Bubble?

[MBasial]

I'm on the verge of getting an iPhone, because it's the only remaining smartphone that appears to be designed to fit in a pocket. I went to see about upgrading my Motorola Droid to a Droid Razr, thinking I would get something a little thinner, a little lighter, a little more battery, than what I have now. The Razr is the size of a ping-pong paddle. It's stupid. I walked out angry and still have my old phone.

I don't understand what the Motorola and other engineers are thinking. Congratulations on how thin the Razr is. Too bad it's comically large in X and Y. I held my Droid against every other smartphone in two different stores, and not a single Android phone is smaller in X or Y (some are thinner). The Droid is already right at my upper limit for pocket comfort.

Maybe Apple sold most of the phones on Verizon because the iPhone is the only phone-sized product remaining on the market. (I am happy to hear suggestions for a phone-sized Android phone, perhaps I missed one in my search.)

Re:Bubble?

[narcc]

You think as if all consumers are idiots and will put down good hard earned money for shitty products.

Maybe not all, but certainly most.

Consumers are idiots who will happily pay more for an inferior product for idiotic reasons like it's a particular color or is stamped with a particular brand name.

Need more? Take a look at eBay some time. Buyers, like total idiots, will frequently bid a used item's price above what you'd pay for new retail! It's why it's so damn difficult to get a bargain on the site these days.

Hell, if consumers weren't morons, and rewarded the best (highest quality) products with their dollars, we'd be talking about how Creative changed the music industry with the Nomad. Instead, they bought that other player famously described "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

So, why did consumers by shit when they could have had a much better product? Brilliant marketing. MP3 players were unheard of at the time, and digital music was a bit dubious following the Napster fiasco. Apple had the brand-recognition and the white ear-bud ads that made them look mainstream, acceptable, and even "cool". Never mind how lame the iPod was compared to competing products or how wretched the sound produced by those ultra-low quality ear-buds was. They sold like hotcakes. (Before you bring up iTMS, remember that it didn't exist until long after "iPod" was a household name.)

So, yeah, consumers are idiots who will put down a good bit of their hard-earned money for shitty products. What on earth made you think that consumers were rational?

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancer?

Re:Bubble?

[schlachter]

Even more so, the rate of suicides at Foxconn is actually LOWER than the average suicide rate among Americans workers! Amazing.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-05-26/tech/30097107_1_suicide-rate-foxconn-suicide-prevention

Re:Bubble?

[DogDude]

You think as if all consumers are idiots and will put down good hard earned money for shitty products.

McDonald's is the most successful restaurant chain in the world.

Wal-Mart is the most successful retailer in the world..

Re:Bubble?

[narcc]

And the number of "fanboys" appear to grow exponentially each quarter

Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is...

How exactly do you imagine that Apple manages to keep on getting all these new fans?

The market is growing and they're a well-known brand. That's not too complicated for you, is it?

Hell, RIM's subscriber base grew more than 40% last year. Not too bad for a supposedly dying company! How exactly do you image that Blackberry manages to keep on getting all these new fans?

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

It's a good question. But not one that appears to have been investigated by any of the journalists reporting the story.

Even less thought has been put in by the posters that refer back to the story as if suicides only happen at Chinese factories producing iPhones.

Re:Bubble?

[sl149q]

Well multi-year contracts for iPhones are not that bad. I'm just about finished on my 3 year iPhone 3GS contract and Apple is not only still supporting it they are still selling it!

What other Smartphone manufacturer is doing either (actively supporting, updating and selling a phone introduced in 2009.)

When (if) I upgrade this summer I'll be able to sell my 3GS via Craigslist. And it will probably last a few more years. Apple will probably continue to actively support it for a least another two years.

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is...

Looks like someone hasn't been looking at Apple's results...

The market is growing and they're a well-known brand. That's not too complicated for you, is it?

So you mean it's not just fanboys that will buy anything Apple puts out. i.e. You're repeating my point.

Hell, RIM's subscriber base grew more than 40% last year. Not too bad for a supposedly dying company! How exactly do you image that Blackberry manages to keep on getting all these new fans?

No one claimed RIMs results were as a result of fanboys buying anything RIM put out.

Re:Bubble?

[Algae_94]

But buying them does. I can't believe that this level of consumer spending on discretionary items is sustainable.

Re:Bubble?

[narcc]

So unless for some reason people stop liking their iphones (which seems unlikely) there's no bubble here.

Other platforms eclipsed Apple a while ago in terms of features and usability. Android phones offer a great alternative with features and options that you'll never get from Apple. RIM's new OS takes mobile computing to a whole new level, and not just technically, they even offer a drastically superior UI to the famous iOS interface.

It doesn't take long to go from top to bottom. Blackberry was the best selling phone brand when we began 2011 -- they were first passed by Android in Q1, then Apple by in Q2. They're still growing, and have some great new products both on the market and in the pipe, but that hasn't stopped the doomsayers.

Apple, on the other hand, has had nothing new to offer in years, just boring updates to their old product line (a bit like RIM in 2009, only with fewer new products). Apple's strong position in the smartphone market can and, unless they start innovating now, will fall just as quickly. That is, once consumers notice how far Apple has slipped behind the competition.

The tech press isn't likely to give Apple a pass with the iPhone 5 after getting burned by Siri, the supposed "future of mobile computing" that had all-but completely fizzled out by November. I suspect that we've already seen Apple's best days.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go douche. You certainly aren't elitist at all.

Re:Bubble?

[artor3]

Even less thought has been put in by the posters that refer back to the story as if suicides only happen at Chinese factories producing iPhones.

I don't think those people are being any less honest than the people who try to brush it off as a normal suicide rate by improperly applying statistics.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

I HATE OS X, specifically the Dock. Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to use a shrunken picture of the program as it's dock icon? Spaces and expose are the only things I like, the rest of the interface is terrible.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Foxconn probably employs a significant percentage of the people in _that_ demographic, I would guess they are highly correlated!

Re:Bubble?

[UnknownSoldier]

> Apple's success is the limited variance. They make a few models of each device, and generally a good/better/best option for each

That is certainly a factor.

See: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html

For why choice is a bad thing for consumers.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then by having employees with a reduced rate of suicide, Apple's manufacturers are increasing consumption of limited natural resources, contributing to pollution, and increasing unemployment rates. Apple is an obviously immoral company.

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

I'm not misusing statistics. It's for the people making the accusations to make their case. They haven't even mentioned the normal expected suicide rate let alone narrowed it down by demographic category. I point out the general Chinese rate because it's easily available and shows that those making the accusations have some work to do before they show that there is anything out of the ordinary at Foxconn.

I'm being honest. Those alleging that iPhone manufacturing conditions are causing suicides without any evidence of that are either not being honest or are just ignorant.

Re:Bubble?

[stms]

I see post in similar veins as yours all the time on /. they stem from the fact that we're nerds. Nerds by definition have difficulties understanding other humans. Nerds combine numbers and facts to give us an understanding of value. This is not the way most people think. Most people make decisions and assign value based upon emotions.

Not only that but when you think about it "what UI is best" is a very opinionated thing in of itself. How many people people here despise unity despite the fact that it's very clearly much more simple from an end user perspective. What's the point of having a faster CPU/GPU in a smartphone; you can only fit so much data in 3 to 5 inch screen; you can play fairly robust 3D games on a 3GS. Most people don't even know what specs their phones have. Next time you see someone on the street with an iPhone ask them what CPU their iPhone uses.

Having said all this over time there probably will be a decline in iPhone sales but there's a big difference between that and a bubble.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

and (obviously) gainfully employed.

Not by what I keep hearing about foxconn.

Re:Bubble?

[artor3]

I hadn't realized you're the same person who posted the initial comment, so please don't think I was singling you out.

However, you ARE misusing statistics. Maybe not intentionally, but you are all the same. You can't just say "this stat is easily available, therefore I'll apply it" while ignoring all of the factors that would clearly run against your conclusion. For example, the median American wage right now is $33k. If Microsoft decided it was going to pay it's engineers $40k, you wouldn't say, "That's a good salary, because it's above what most people make." You have to compare apples to apples.

Re:Bubble?

[artor3]

An interesting thought, but I don't think Foxconn actually does employ all that significant a percentage of the aforementioned demographics (young, employed, sane, healthy).

China has 422.3 million people between the ages of 15 and 35.

Their employment rate is 4.3%. I couldn't find a breakout by age, so we'll be conservative and assume it's 10% in this demographic, leaving 380 M in the pot.

At that point, even if you assume that half of the Chinese population is either insane or suffering serious illness, you still have 190 M people in the young, healthy, sane, employed demographic. Foxconn would make up less than half a percent of that.

Moral of the story: China has a lot of people.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

400Mbit/sec vs 12Mbit/sec was very good when filling up GB of music. You've conveniently left that out.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is they are killing themselves on factory land.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to use a shrunken picture of the program as it's dock icon?.

No-one, that's why that doesn't happen you idiot.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too small for fat guy cargo jorts pockets. Less space than an SD Card. Lame

Re:Bubble?

[BasilBrush]

I agree. But you've heard "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The claim is that people are committing suicide due to the conditions in those factories. And that requires extraordinary evidence.

I'm, making the case that they need more evidence than >, because the general rate for that number of people is higher than that.

Put it another way, the same as in a courtroom the accused doesn't have to prove his innocence. The prosecution have to prove his guilt. And the defence barrister/advocate only has to show the reasonable doubt in the evidence presented.

As things stand there is absolutely no statistical evidence there is a suicide problem at the Foxconn factories.

And I'm not misusing statistics.

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

You're talking about different things. Revenues are independent of costs, and the GP was talking about costs.

OTOH, that is revenue before 70% goes to whoever made the MP3s, videos and apps. Only then cost kicks in.

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

I've always wondered about this statistic.

When you compare a single company to a country, you have to consider demographic differences. For example, suicide rates are generally higher among the unemployed, among the mentally unstable, among the elderly, etc.

Foxconn employs people who are young, healthy, sane, not on drugs, and (obviously) gainfully employed. What is the national rate among that demographic, and how does Foxconn's rate compare? My guess is not favorably.

In China, suicide rate is highest among young adults - just the age group working for Foxconn. So you guessed wrong.

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The thing with many techy Apple Haters is that they think hating Apple gives them Tech Geek status. But not only is that not enough, it isn't even required.

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

The only thing going on is that people are suckers for slick marketing and consumerism in general.

So that's why on a daily basis, I see more android commercials than apple commercials.

Ahh, but those have to also sell those really crappy ones, and all the ones that give you "choice".

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

You think as if all consumers are idiots and will put down good hard earned money for shitty products. McDonald's is the most successful restaurant chain in the world. Wal-Mart is the most successful retailer in the world..

And Android is the best Smartphone OS ever.

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

And the number of "fanboys" appear to grow exponentially each quarter

Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is...

Could it be you? Did you look at the numbers and couldn't realize it, or do you actually not know? In 2009, they sold more phones than in 2007 and 2008 combined. In 2010 they sold more than the previous three years combined. In 2011 they again sold more than in the four years before combined. Do you fucking see the pattern?

Re:Bubble?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Some would say that a $0 Iphone is worth less than a $100 Android phone.

Those are called Fandroids.

Re:Bubble?

[Karlt1]

Hell, if consumers weren't morons, and rewarded the best (highest quality) products with their dollars, we'd be talking about how Creative changed the music industry with the Nomad. Instead, they bought that other player famously described "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

So you think the Nomad that used a huge fragile 3.5" disk drive, was larger, heavier and synced over a serial port was better?

And people wonder why Slashdot opinion is a poor arbiter of what will be successful in the market.....

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may have a lesser suicide rate because they installed anti-suicide nets....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/28/foxconn-plant-china-deaths-suicides

Re:Bubble?

[Americano]

The Android size increase of late is likely very related to the fact that many of the phones are coming with 4G capabilities now. 4G chipsets are physically bigger than 3G, and consume more power.

As a phone designer, the options are:

1) Increase the size of phone to fit bigger chips and more battery to power the bigger chips inside the phone; since you have to stay "razor thin", your only option is to increase length and width, i.e. - screen size.

2) Cram 4G chips into existing form factors, producing a phone which will see about 30 minutes of actual 4g use on a single charge.

Re:Bubble?

[ceoyoyo]

"(1) a closed iOS ecosystem that encourages people to remain on their platform, and (2) Profitable multi-year contract arrangements with the telcos that allow them to market "$149" handsets with the true cost hidden in multi-thousand dollar contracts."

1) A closed ecosystem doesn't mean much when your distributors are locking people into multiyear contracts.
2) So do ALL other cell phone manufacturers. If you actually compare similar phones, the true cost of Apple's are similar to the true cost of everyone else's. ALL those costs are hidden from customer.

Re:Bubble?

[ceoyoyo]

"Looks like someone doesn't know what the exponential growth is..."

Um, you express RIM's growth as a year over year percentage. Would you do the same with Apple? Are you sure YOU know what exponential growth is?

Re:Bubble?

[ceoyoyo]

"I think one of the reasons behind Apple's success is the limited variance."

Someone else mentioned another factor - Samsung makes half a dozen different phones that are named with some variation of Samsung Galaxy. Only one of them is the high quality phone everybody wants... the others supposedly exist to give consumers choice, but the way the carriers use them is to fool people - advertising free a "Galaxy XX!" So people fall for it, eventually realize they're locked into a contract with an inferior phone, and aren't happy.

Apple gives you a few, clearly delineated choices. You know what you're getting. No tricks. And no tricks the carriers can play.

Re:Bubble?

[SomePgmr]

You really shouldn't have to defend that point. You're right, and I don't understand why people always get so aggravated.

Clearly the market thinks they're getting something more in an Apple product, or they wouldn't buy them in greater numbers over the alternatives, at higher prices, even during recessions, year after year. For the only objective definition of "better product", that the features of it are consistently more desirable than the competition at the price they're offered, Apple wins (on their big money makers), hands-down.

There's simply no other rational way to figure it. The rest is emotional nonsense, and any individual's personal preference is largely irrelevant. Including mine, which is typically for non-Apple alternatives.

Wednesday?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did I lose a day? I could've sworn it was Tuesday.

Re:Wednesday?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, and I'm in GMT

Re:Wednesday?

[Cimexus]

Wednesday here...afternoon in fact. Closer to Thursday than Tuesday.

Apple is a big as Big Oil

[Anonymous Coward]

They use child and/or slave labor, shitty business practices and leveraged the death of their CEO.
Can they finally be considered uncool now?

1 billion

[gorrepati]

Thats a billion dollars a week! I figure there are not even many countries which can manage that.

Re:1 billion

[symbolset]

Countries don't produce profit numbers but rather GDP, and I think revenues line up better for GDP than profits because GDP is the sum of the value of all goods and services produced in the nation in a year - which is sort of like company gross revenues. Annualizing the Christmas quarter run rate gives $185B (yeah, I know - that's cheating a little but it's a growth company and the trend is for this to average out over the next three quarters). For comparison Pakistan, the 2010 47th highest country in the world by GDP according to the IMF had a GDP of $176.87B.

Pakistan had an estimated population in 2011 of 177,100,000, and is the 6th most populous country in the world.

Various sources give different numbers than the above, of course, but you get the idea. Apple is turning out some amazingly large numbers. There would be 47 nations above Apple on that list of nations, and 130 some odd below it - if Apple was a nation.

so i guess.

[superwiz]

We should be expecting a congressional hearing on what Congress should do with all those profits? I mean, if it was held for Exxon (which doesn't employ slave labor), it should be held for Apple (which does employ slave labor) shouldn't it? Apple is only this profitable because US has relations with China favorable enough that Apple can get a country purporting to defend workers' rights to create a slave-labor powered factories. We should tax that and subsidize failing tech companies, right? I am sure AT&T's and Verizon's of the world could use a hand out.

Re:so i guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep on crying into your middle class pillow, hippy.

Re:so i guess.

[geekoid]

I was going to explain why there's a key difference, that I read your journal. So I'm not going to bother, because no amount of explaining will fix stupid.

Communism wishes to roll back the clock.. idiot.

Re:so i guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is in the perception: Apple did it by developing something that didn't exist before. Exxon did it by digging stuff out of the ground and suddenly prices spiked through no effort of their own.

Re:so i guess.

[MightyMartian]

I'm sorry. What did Apple develop that didn't exist before?

Re:so i guess.

[superwiz]

A smart phone, of course. Yes, Sun had them in prototypes 2-3 years before Apple did. But Apple put it everyone's hands. Just like Exxon ensured logistics negotiating contracts all over the world, building drilling stations all over the world, operated shipping boats, ensured refineries' operations. And then made it possible for a million gas stations to exist everywhere in the country to pour liquid, whose contents are highly explosive, in a safe way in the middle of nowhere. You see, if it's not "digital", it's not innovative. Don't you know? They are just "digging stuff up." Cave man stuff really.

Re:so i guess.

[superwiz]

Sorry, but are you actually defending Communism? I just want to make sure I understood you correctly before I laugh uncontrollably.

Re:so i guess.

[vakuona]

The iPhone.

Re:so i guess.

[steve_bryan]

1977 - Consumer friendly complete computer out of the box Apple II
1983 - Mass market desktop metaphor computer and software Lisa
1984 - Macintosh
1987(?) - Small business affordable ($6000) PostScript laser printer LaserWriter ...
2001 - iPod (hard drive based music player with easily purchased popular digital music, N.B. iTMS took some time to develop
2001 - Mac OS X first unix OS that allowed but did not require geek cred
2001 - Apple Store first tech store that didn't suck (usually) in contrast to Best Buy, Circuit City, etc
2007 - iPhone first modern multitouch based "smartphone"
2010 - iPad first tablet that is not a laptop wannabe due to same iPhone pioneered multitouch interface

Dates are off the top of my head so could be off slightly. You can contest all you want about "didn't exist before" but these things were not in stores available to buy from competitors

Re:so i guess.

[narcc]

No one knows, but they're all 100% certain that Apple made a fortune by developing something that didn't exist before.

I mean, everyone knows that. They just can't remember what it was right now.

Re:so i guess.

[superwiz]

Only the last 2 are responsible for their success. Apple store will be the reason for their eventual downfall. And iPhone was not an innovation. Sun has a prototype smartphone long before Apple.

Re:so i guess.

[steve_bryan]

Really? Did Sun create a multitouch API from the ground up like Apple? There were plenty of "smartphones" before the iPhone but what they had in common was that they all sucked. They had their little clicky keyboards and mouse substitutes and they ran like miniature laptop computers with interfaces from the 80's that were not even compelling on laptops. On top of all that you are putting forth a prototype as your example. Are you for real? A prototype? That's hilarious.

What is most amusing is touting the Apple Store as the seeds of Apples downfall. I remember how the idea was mocked as naive and incompetent by citing previous failed efforts like the Gateway stores. However, as the Apple Store has become possibly the most successful retail store in history the critics have quietly shuffled off and learned that their insights might be less than perfect. But not you. Impending disaster. Apple is Doomed!

By the way, the reason for Apple's success is that it is not Apple, It is Next Computer wearing an Apple skin. Apple acquired Next but it was actually a takeover of Apple by Next. The OS, NextStep, is the basis of the system software of all the Apple devices. Even as Next was fading it was acknowledged that it was a superb OS but it had arrived too late and lacked the critical mass of users needed to survive. The Apple acquisition and transition from MacOS changed that factor by stealth. There are other important factors, like the successful launch of the Apple Store, but Apple with MacOS would not be where it is today.

Re:so i guess.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I may add a couple with doubtless a more limited scope, but also transformative within the industry:

1998 - First consumer-level computer (iMac bondie blue) to entirely do away with floppies, proving that USB peripherals would do the trick just fine.
1999 - First consumer-level wireless platform (Airport), including laptop integration (iBook).
2008 - First SDK and support environment for development, distribution and commercialization of applications for a mobile device within reach of hobbyist/small time developers.
2009 - First post-Flash, standard HTML 5 only device to roam the 'net.

Re:so i guess.

[superwiz]

Apple store is a leverage. As all other leverage it allows the company to make more money when their core products are successful and forces it to lose more money when they are not. It's not a failing or successful strategy in itself -- only insofar as the core products do well or not. All it will take for them is to miss on a one or two product cycles and the cost of the apple stores will burn a huge hole in their balance sheet. They won't recover from it. Leverage is the opposite of insurance -- it exacerbates failures by many fold while increasing success by a marginal amount. Long-term success is determined by how well they are positioned to survive occasional stumbles. I could go on, but you probably get the point.

Re:so i guess.

[steve_bryan]

That is a better explanation of your position than other critics have presented (mindless zealots who are unable to control their impulse to purchase). I still think it suffers from a time scale perspective. I don't see how Apple can continue to introduce products that experience exponential growth (I mean that in the mathematical sense, not the uneducated hyperbolic sense). But they still have four categories (laptops, handheld media players/internet devices, cellphone capable internet devices, and tablets) that will continue to grow for as far as the eye can see (except maybe iPods and they remain a huge market). A few non-revolutionary products will do little to dampen the desire to buy always improved, hit products from a tech store that doesn't suck.

When and if those products become irrelevant, assuming nothing new and significant ever appears, Apple would have to adjust its Apple Store strategy but it would do so as a huge incumbent. This would be some twenty or thirty years in the future judging from the wintel life cycle. This suggests geopolitical forces that would apply to the US and West generally are more likely to matter than commercial forces. That is what I mean by time scale. Your speculation would better apply to an Apple that prospered greatly from the iPod but never ventured into new territory. Simple media players become commodities and Apple Stores whither on the vine. But that is not what happened. In any case betting that Apple will not produce a new hit product has already become a fools game.

Re:so i guess.

[PintoPiman]

What? Apple store will be a reason for their downfall? Apple stores make more money per square foot than basically anything in retail. You'd as soon convince me that slot machine's will be the downfall of Las Vegas.

The iPhone was an innovation. Just because others had made crappy ones first doesn't change that. For so many devices, Apple didn't make the first in the category, they made the first in the category that didn't suck. The "not sucking" part is the product of thousands of tiny innovations, or perhaps more accurately the innovative combination of thousands of little things.

Listen, haters gonna hate, don't let me get in your way. Just don't mistake your hate for, you know, a rational assessment of Apple's strengths or weaknesses.

Re:so i guess.

[superwiz]

The problem isn't that they might not have new products. The problem for them is that if they introduce a product which gets only a lukewarm (rather than hot) reception, then they will lose more money in that quarter or two than the other tech companies would lose if they introduced a complete stinker. Leverage multiplies losses. If BestBuy can't sell enough of gadget X, they half the shelf space which is occupied by gadget X. Apple store has to sell Apple products. So they would lose money both on "keeping the lights on" in the stores (figuratively speaking) and on the product which only got the lukewarm reception.

Re:so i guess.

[steve_bryan]

I understand your point about leverage. What I think you are trying to ignore is the wealth of products Apple makes and will continue to sell. The Mac (at least in name) goes back to '84. That is almost 30 years. Apple has never sold more or made more money on the Mac than in the most recent quarter. There is a huge amount of growth potential from the multitudes who are not satisfied with their current choice and are willing to try an Apple product because of their experience with the iPhone, iPad, and/or iPod. This is even more true of the iPhone and iPad. They insures an enormous amount of time (decades) before an improbable absence of a new successul product is felt. Finally there is the $100 billion that Apple (and by extension The Apple Store) has in cash or cash equivalents that could sustain them if they decided to nothing but sail around in yachts. Anyone waiting for Apple to fail because of the Apple Store needs to be very young and very patient.

Inflation-adjusted ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Profitable Quarter in History?
Did you adjust for inflation?

Re:Inflation-adjusted ?

[phantomfive]

Yes. Blew the next-closest quarter out of the water. Apple has been making a lot more recently than it ever did, because the market is so much larger than it was in the 80s.

Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[SuperKendall]

The entire phone market is switching over to smartphones.

All of CHINA is switching over to smartphones.

Apple's current profits are based on selling to a tiny fraction of the current phone market; at least some iPhones are now free in contract.

This is not a bubble. This is a surfer just at the START of riding in a very big wave.

And that's only figuring in the phone business, the entire PC industry is going to switch quickly to where most casual consumer computing is done on tablets... and there Apple is again, lead surfer on that wave.

Oh, and I forgot to mention Apple is a leader in selling consumers media over the internet. But that would only matter if that were some kind of transition underway also.

So if you think it's time to sell, think again... even if you think buying now is foolish, well plenty said that back at $350. The fact is that just to keep the absurdly low P/E of 15 that Apple has currently, every quarter is going to see a large stock surge like you see now as profits and cash on hand keep dragging the price up against the will of the traders.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Microlith]

Woo, SuperKendall the Apple Zealot strikes again.

I'll give a shit about Apple's high stock price when it splits or they start actually paying out dividends to their investors. Until then it's just a bubble you hope you exit before it pops.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, feature phones outsell smartphones planet wide with no end in sight.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Karlt1]

I'll give a shit about Apple's high stock price when it splits

So please explain how you think a stock split will increase value? Do you also think if someone gives you two 5 dollar bills for a 10 you have more money?

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Microlith]

I own a single share. If it split I could sell one and see some return on the investment. Same for a dividend. Until then it's immaterial wealth that could vanish before it is claimed.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Karlt1]

I own a single share. If it split I could sell one and see some return on the investment. Same for a dividend. Until then it's immaterial wealth that could vanish before it is claimed.

And the average dividend yield is 1.96%...

Would you rather have the S&P average dividend yield or AAPL capital appreciation?

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give a shit about Apple's high stock price when it splits

So please explain how you think a stock split will increase value? Do you also think if someone gives you two 5 dollar bills for a 10 you have more money?

Value is relative. From Wikipedia about stock splits increase stock prices: "...there are more buyers and sellers for 10 shares at $10 than 1 share at $100."

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[BasilBrush]

You could sell the one share and see a return on your investment. But you don't want to do that because you want to keep some of your investment. Which implies that you still see AAPL as a good investment today.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[BasilBrush]

Not so long ago fixed line phones used to outsell cell phones with no end in sight.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[SadButTrue]

Honestly, if you can't afford more than 1 share of Apple you shouldn't be playing in the market.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[DigiShaman]

It's only a bubble if they're not making record profits. I was on the fence about investing in Apple after Steve died, but no longer.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and the number of chinese that can afford an iphone are about 1/3 the US. major market. better invest so superkendell can sell his $350 shares

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[narcc]

Woo, SuperKendall the Apple Zealot strikes again.

He's competing with BasilBrush for the coveted "Cheif Slashdot Apple Fan" position now that Bonch seems to have disappeared.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Algae_94]

It's not an either or. They can pay a dividend and grow. Instead of sitting on the cash, the shareholders would get some of it out.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[MBC1977]

Perhaps you haven't seen shares of Berkshire Hathaway. Apple is a mere raindrop in the bucket to some investors.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[SadButTrue]

Assume you didn't mean to reply to me? Obviously if you can't afford $400 then you can't afford $100k.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[toruonu]

Play with options. I bought AAPL february 440 call when AAPL had rocketed from 382 to 396 in one single day ca 2-3 weeks ahead of earnings for 490 usd (not that much higher than 1 share). When it hit 427 a bit over a week ago I sold it for $1100 (it was a predictable rally as earnings were coming up, year end rallies, new year rallies and what not and I only bought it after AAPL had moved up 3 days in row and one of the moves was significant (3+%). Had I held on to that option it would have been today worth ca $2200-$2500 because of the blowout quarter but also entailed a risk if there'd have been a miss. I however bought a Feb 450 call for 520 usd a week before I sold the 440. That's going to be worth ca 1200-1500 usd today because it went from being 30 usd out of the money to 5 usd in the money when AAPL hit 455 in after hours trading. Overall investment: 1010 usd, return (1100+1200-1500 or more when I sell it today or wait wether it moves up more). So a split would be nice for small investor to be able to own 100 shares and write covered calls, but you can get good returns out of AAPL with options without having to invest tens of thousands...

And these are real deals I made with my own savings money of which I put a certain % to high-risk investment (which options are as there is probability for 100% loss) that sometimes pay off big (biggest return so far is 160% in one day) and sometimes don't.

Oh and for me a dividend would be bad. In my country you can delay paying income tax on stock earned profits until you actually take out more money from your investment account than you put in (no matter how many years it may take). However dividends are automatically taxed before the amount even arrives in my account meaning that I immediately lose ca 21% (that's the income tax here) that I cannot re-invest.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Woo, SuperKendall the Apple Zealot strikes again.

I'll give a shit about Apple's high stock price when it splits or they start actually paying out dividends to their investors. Until then it's just a bubble you hope you exit before it pops.

You are right, the smart investor buys Microsoft, for they pay a dividend. Mmmmpf. Snicker. Mwaahhuhaahhhaaahahauaha.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Actually, feature phones outsell smartphones planet wide with no end in sight.

Especially if you count in all the Android phones that are feature phones dressed up.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, for most of the time we had "fixed line phones" in western Europe and North America, they were leased from the phone companies, not sold to the customer.

When they did finally start being sold, they were already feature filled and would last a decade or more, so not many were sold.

Feature phones, not smart phones are where massive volumes are being moved in rural China, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Africa and Latin America. Also 60% of cell phones sold in the US are feature phones, not smart phones.

Re:Not a bubble. Inflection point.

[coinreturn]

Woo, SuperKendall the Apple Zealot strikes again.

I'll give a shit about Apple's high stock price when it splits or they start actually paying out dividends to their investors. Until then it's just a bubble you hope you exit before it pops.

Apple shares split 2 for 1 in June 2000 and again in Feb 2005. If you'd bought 1 share pre-Y2K, not only would you have 3 shares to sell and keep 1, but you'd have made a 3200% profit on them.

American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet Apple couldn't manufacture iPhones in the US because they couldn't afford the extra $49 it would cost to make iPhones here. It might shave a few millions off of those billions. Can't have that happen!

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus Plus Plus

Re:American jobs

[randy of the redwood]

Not to be pedantic, but if your $49 is correct, that would be just under $2 BILLION in reduced profits if they did it in the US for last quarter alone. According to the press release, they sold over 37 million phones last quarter.

I think if I went to my boss and suggested it would be a patriotic move to build here and it would only cost us $8 billion a year, I would probably be looking for work.

I am a big fan of building in the US, but let's look for products like construction equipment (that take large amounts of natural resources we have, and are expensive to ship), and do those first. (See Caterpillar for a success story like this). When China's economy has caught up to ours (they want Lattes too), then we can look to compete on things like electronics that are cheap to ship.

Re:American jobs

[artor3]

Considering that the only reason Apple exists is because of American prosperity, they have a duty to aid in the continuation of that prosperity so that the innovators of the next generation receive the same benefits that they did. Reducing their profits by $1.8B out of $13B is not asking all that much... only about 14%. Less than Mitt Romney pays in taxes!

Besides, pumping an extra several billion dollars a year into the pockets of middle class Americans will increase the sales for all Apple products, so the actual cost to the company would be less.

If they don't do it voluntarily, slap a 15% tax on overseas production and give that money to the poor and unemployed. It would be more efficient if they did the right thing by choice, but if they don't, we should obtain the effect by force.

Re:American jobs

[MikeMo]

Great article here http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/01/supply-chains?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/appleandtheamericaneconomy about why it's just not possible to do it in the US anymore, no matter how much Apple might want to. In fact, it might not even make sense on the macro level.

Re:American jobs

[stdarg]

The only reason Apple exists is because they made great products, not because of what you did for them. Do you think American prosperity doesn't depend on successful businesses as much as successful businesses depend on American prosperity?

Re:American jobs

[artor3]

Do you think Steve Jobs would have started Apple if he had been born in Kenya? Would the engineers there be able to design great devices if the electricity was only on for four hours a day? What if some warlord rolled through, enslaving, raping, and murdering anyone in their way?

There's a reason you don't see any successful businesses based in Somalia. You need a prosperous, stable nation as a launching point. Companies like Apple are quite happy to take advantage of the great conditions here, but give absolutely nothing back. Those conditions won't be around for the next generation as a result.

Re:American jobs

[geoffrobinson]

It's government's job to encourage business. Do they want a big thank you for doing what they're supposed to do?

Re:American jobs

[geoffrobinson]

Becoming a foreign company is a really easy thing to do. It's just a post office box in Switzerland away.

Re:American jobs

[stdarg]

Yeah I understand your argument but you're acting like one half is more important than the other.

There's a reason Apple is making billions of dollars and you're not. You both have the advantage of American prosperity and stability. But they made it and you didn't (not to the same level). And yet you want your "piece" of their success.. and the only thing you did to earn it is to be born into this backdrop of prosperity and stability which you have very little responsibility for. So why do you deserve anything more than the same opportunity that the people high up in Apple have? And you already have that opportunity because you live here, you don't need to steal their money to have it.

Even this late in the game you could get a piece of the action by working for them or buying a tiny amount of their stock.

Let's do some calcs.. you said $1.8 billion, divided by 300 million, that's $6 per person. How many shares of Apple would you need to buy to get that same $6 legitimately and morally, not by just taking it from them at gunpoint? Well probably about 1 share the way their price has been appreciating, you'll get more than $6 per quarter.

But nope, that's not good enough for you! They "owe" it to you, because they happen to benefit from American prosperity (just like you).

You know, I can totally get on board with this sense of entitlement. I'll do you one better. China's economy is heavily dependent on American wealth.. so they owe their success to us too. In fact we should own like 60% of China. Africa takes a bunch of aid money from us, I propose a 75% tax for everybody in Africa, payable to us.

Btw this is exactly why so many left wing movements evolve into fascism, from unions to communist regimes. Turns out everybody owes you everything, and you and your buddies are just the men to make them pay their fair share. Screw freedom, it's wealth that makes us all happy and successful.

Re:American jobs

[artor3]

This isn't about me. I'm wealthy myself. I have a kickass job that pays six figures, and make a pretty significant return on my investments. By my estimates, I'll be able to retire when I'm 45 (though I'll probably choose not to). This is about the next generation. The people who won't get to have all the advantages Steve Jobs and his kind had, because the country will have been bled dry by then.

By the way, fuck you for dragging in those tired old political talking points. "Taxes are taken at gun point!" "Unions are fascist!" Turn off Rush Limbaugh and open your goddamn eyes. But since you've already decided to reduce the discussion to insult hurling and stereotyping, I'll join you...

The problem with you conservatives is that you only care for yourselves. You can't even comprehend the idea that people might care for another. The idea that I can look at a guy on the streets, and see a human being, not just some cockroach to be (at best) ignored is utterly alien to you. You're fucking sociopaths. Gee, wasn't that fun and productive?

Apple used public resources to get rich. They owe it to the public to pay to keep those resources available. Try to get over your all-consuming sense of greed, and understand that.

Re:American jobs

[m.ducharme]

So you're saying American workers deserve to earn a living more than Chinese workers?

Re:American jobs

[artor3]

From an American company? Yes. I also care more about my friends and family than I do about some people living a thousand years from now. From a purely calculating point of view, all people are of equal worth. In practice, no one actually lives their life like that. People just selectively apply that standard when it fits with the conclusion that they want to reach.

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

What public resources did Apple use to get rich?

What was the cost Apple incurred from the use of public resources since 1976?

What is the amount they owe to pay into these public resources?

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

F*ck America! War Criminals!!!

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how in the fuck can Apple fix Somalia? Maybe they should save Darfur too. Just pick which crazy warlord in Darfur we are backing. Only on slashdot would this be marked as "insightful." The only thing your post is lacking is blaming Apple for crack babies.

Re:American jobs

[Kevin Stevens]

Did you read this article in the nytimes last week: It was really eye opening. The summary is that chinese manufacturers or electronics are no longer just cheaper, they are way more flexible: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

... and they run tight sweatshops. You are forgetting that part. The reason American factories can't turn around on a dime is because we cannot rouse our workers at night from dormitories attached to the factory, give them a biscuit, and then have them sit down and assemble iPhones for 12 hours straight.

Re:American jobs

[roman_mir]

The problem with you conservatives is that you only care for yourselves. You can't even comprehend the idea that people might care for another. The idea that I can look at a guy on the streets, and see a human being, not just some cockroach to be (at best) ignored is utterly alien to you. You're fucking sociopaths. Gee, wasn't that fun and productive?

- by the looks of it it's you, who only cares about himself, you want others to give you stuff you clearly didn't earn.

Apple provides the world with products people want, jobs people do and wealth that it creates, so much of that goes into the economy, in all ways, from taxes, to just purchasing power and new business opportunities and investment for people who want to participate in Apple's success by buying shares of their company.

Apple certainly does much MORE than their fair share, why the fuck are you slacking off?

Re:American jobs

[Truedat]

Apple has no such obligation - as a corporation beholden to its shareholders it has a duty to maximise profit, that's all. And hopefully in a way that can be sustained, but that's a whole other can of worms. This is how all boardroom decisions are made.

Occasionally these corporations do something good, such as google with its support of numerous open standards - but I guarantee this is done for the good of said corporation. That it appears selfless to us on the surface is just a happy coincidence.

On the other hand the one party that _does_ have an obligation is the government who set the ground rules for business and are in a position to grant targeted subsidies and other incentives so that it is cheaper to look for the homegrown solution.

However it's my hunch that even if it were more expensive for Apple to use foreign labor they would still continue to make use of it since there are other vectors at play. Such as a more nimble workforce and sheer scale of operation that enable Apple to quickly get a product to market and make fine tuned adjustments. I'm not saying that cheaper costs aren't a fantastically sweet cherry for them, but I suspect it's the super efficient and predictable workflow that us most valuable.

So Obama, give us a cheaper, more nimble base of engineering and we can go American. Can't do that? Oh dear we are fucked, but at least we understand why.

Re:American jobs

[roman_mir]

Thumbs up.

Re:American jobs

[SteveHeadroom]

Do you think Steve Jobs would have started Apple if he had been born in Kenya?

No, but he could have become President of the United States!

Re:American jobs

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Do you think Steve Jobs would have started Apple if he had been born in Kenya? Would the engineers there be able to design great devices if the electricity was only on for four hours a day? What if some warlord rolled through, enslaving, raping, and murdering anyone in their way?

There's a reason you don't see any successful businesses based in Somalia. You need a prosperous, stable nation as a launching point. Companies like Apple are quite happy to take advantage of the great conditions here, but give absolutely nothing back. Those conditions won't be around for the next generation as a result.

Somehow I get the feeling it is your responsibility to create a multi billion corporation to employ millions of Americans - stop waisting your time on a soap box and get to work.

Re:American jobs

[ceoyoyo]

Do you really think a few million Americans would be up for a tedious electronics assembly line job?

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

It's less the fact that they don't employ Americans to make their devices, than the fact that the only people they're willing to employ are effectively slaves.
Race to the bottom.

Re:American jobs

[painandgreed]

And yet Apple couldn't manufacture iPhones in the US because they couldn't afford the extra $49 it would cost to make iPhones here. It might shave a few millions off of those billions. Can't have that happen!

I believe the quote was actually $65 dollars, but what is more important, a nine month delay. I think the major point was not that China was cheaper, but that they could do it now, while the USA would take time. Meanwhile, all the other American computer companies would still be using China as they are now. Besides, those assembly jobs really aren't important. If they were assembled here, we wouldn't have lots of low income workers assembling them, we'd have lots of machines assembling them. If you really want to bitch about bringing jobs to the US, you should be bitching about the higher paying jobs manufacturing the parts that get shipped to China to be assembled by the workers for a Tiawanese company. Hand assembling is right up there with washing dishes (which are all currently taken by Mexicans because Americans don't want those jobs). If you want to help America, bring the transistor and electronics manufacuring that require highly skilled workers back to the US.

Re:American jobs

[Kevin Stevens]

I get that- this is a sobering view of what Americans are up against in the global economy. What I found to be really shocking and eye opening, is that China isn't just about being cheap anymore. China is now BETTER. And they now have the benefit of an entire manufacturing ecosystem around them, kind of like we used to in American cities. At one time in my neighborhood there were all kinds of factories- coffee, sugar refining, boxes, chemicals, packaging, you name it, it was there. They are all condos now. If you wanted to start a factory, you would have to search all over the US or even world to get parts. In China, they can mostly look down the street.

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

"Even this late in the game you could get a piece of the action by working for them [. . .]"

Actually his whole point is that he can't. If he wants a manufacturing job (and many, many people do), it isn't AVAILABLE from Apple to an American citizen. Because they do all their manufacturing overseas.

Re:American jobs

[roman_mir]

Apple has no duty of any kind to help anybody.

Apple is a company that is making money for its investors, so it's helping the people it's supposed to help - investors.

Apple is a company that builds products that apparently people like to use - it's definitely increasing the wealth and prosperity of people by allowing them the privilege to buy Apple products.

Apple is a company that creates tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of jobs, maybe even into millions, given all the supply chains, shipping routes, etc. Apple pays salaries and contract fees and it buys all sorts of materials. All kinds of taxes are paid with money that is generated by Apple.

Apple has done more for the economy and society than anybody can ever expect one company to do, so they are doing much more than anything anybody is doing, including all GOVERNMENTS combined.

You, on the other hand, aren't doing much at all, you are slacking off, not hiring people, not allowing others to participate in investments that you are leading, you probably don't create any products on your own that anybody cares about.

So you can shove that attitude where the sun don't shine.

Re:American jobs

[Gilmoure]

Exactly! Caterpillars shutting down their Canadian plant and moving production to Muncie, Indiana because they can pay labor half what they pay up in Canadia. Someone should let Apple know about Muncie.

Re:American jobs

[roman_mir]

Good thing Palin wasn't born there.

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I understand your argument but you're acting like one half is more important than the other.

Yes, the foundation is more important then the facade even if you couldn't attract customers wihtout the later. There really isn't any dispute if the enabler or the enabled is more important to the end result.

Re:American jobs

[PintoPiman]

If they don't do it voluntarily, slap a 15% tax on overseas production and give that money to the poor and unemployed. It would be more efficient if they did the right thing by choice, but if they don't, we should obtain the effect by force.

Did it ever dawn on you that the "poor and unemployed" are living in China? Or are Chinese, in your worldview, not people too?

Re:American jobs

[PintoPiman]

Companies like Apple are quite happy to take advantage of the great conditions here, but give absolutely nothing back. Those conditions won't be around for the next generation as a result.

They give us phones back. And taxes.

Re:American jobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that a single owner of $6 worth of profit has no actual power to achieve anything for the US in general, whilst Apple does.
Call it economies of scale.
Not to mention their reputational power or the massive impact they could have on the economy by creating a manufacturing cluster (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/apple-and-agglomeration/).
And for the record, nice work on the straw man argument and epic Godwin in one post.

Re:American jobs

[stdarg]

This isn't about me. I'm wealthy myself.

I knew it wouldn't be about you, that's why I added the "not to the same level." It's like 50-50 odds on the internet that the person whining about others not paying taxes is themselves pretty well off and is "happy to pay" because you're so morally pure and all that garbage.

You're richer than me, congrats, and you think you're a better person, double score!

By the way, fuck you for dragging in those tired old political talking points.

By the way, fuck you? nice

Sure I may use phrases like "taxes are taken at gun point" because they convey a lot that is previously understood by both of us without me having to explain it all. But I'm not just regurgitating talking points. They have meaning that I felt was appropriate to the situation.

Apple used public resources to get rich. They owe it to the public to pay to keep those resources available. Try to get over your all-consuming sense of greed, and understand that.

Greed, do you even listen to yourself? You're the one who is a millionaire (or soon to be with that income) and yet you're still envious of those richer than you or those getting a "free ride" by not paying their "fair share".

It's funny if you didn't overhear the beginning bit about Apple, people would think you're a greedy conservative who is complaining about the poor. Quite funny, really.

I have to point out the difference between public resources like oil or fresh water versus human labor and ingenuity. Some companies really do take the resources of a country in a way that means they are unavailable for use by others. Like Exxon. Apple doesn't do that and you're using bullshit rhetoric. They didn't deprive you or anyone else or make it so you don't have the same opportunities as they have.

By the way, awesome how you focused on like 3 phrases that pissed you off and ignored every point I was trying to make. You have nothing to say about the idea of buying their stock to profit cooperatively, or the idea that all the support in the world is worthless if nobody builds a success on top of it? You won't pitch the idea that the government should buy 30% of Apple's stock if they want 30% of Apple's profits, kind of like how China operates?

It's disappointing really. You're like.. a rich guy who wastes his time trolling on slashdot?

That was sad

[SuperKendall]

I always thought WebOS would be a close second to iOS. What tragedy that other platforms prevailed, and like you said HP basically took the axe to WebOS.

RIP, WebOS.

Re:That was sad

[amoeba1911]

I completely agree. Having used Android, iOS and WebOS I agree that WebOS was a superior platform to both of them. However, WebOS failed on two fronts:
WebOS failed where Apple succeeded because WebOS didn't have the cult following, and WebOS failed where Android succeeded because many hardware manufacturers made Android devices.

Everyone has to admit that the flagship WebOS device, Palm Pre, was a beautifully designed device. It even made the iPhone look like an eye sore, but it was clear from day one that without the support of the fanboys and without the blessing of the hardware manufacturers it was just not going to go anywhere.

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't attribute iOS' level of success to a "cult following". If anything, WebOS has a cult following, perhaps even more so than iOS. But only a cult following. And that is why it failed.

You can keep believing that only Apple fanboys are buying iOS devices. But boy that's quite a lot of fanboys out there in the world.

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Sprint users lusting for iPhones settled for the Pre. One was enough. Good riddance.

Re:That was sad

[narcc]

You should check out QNX on the Playbook -- It's undoubtedly rather heavily inspired by WebOS, and smooth as silk.

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe next analysis you do you should try thinking more

Re:That was sad

[tgibbs]

WebOS was just a bit too late. Apple had already sewn up the high end and Android owned the low end of the market. And Palm didn't have the resources (and HP didn't have the will) to hang on for the long haul.

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. Palm Pre failed because the hardware was horrible and WebOS was half-baked at best. I lost track of how many bad reviews the Pre had due to the cheap build quality. WebOS has potential, but the powers at be - Apple Wannabe Rubenstein kept tripping up on everything. That's the reality.

At least the 1st gen iPhone was polished coming out of the gate. Sure it was missing some features, but it was polished. It's a concept that even the current handset makers just can't seem to comprehend.

Re:That was sad

[annex1]

I have to agree. In my time with the Playbook, I have been really impressed with how well the interface operates. It's not perfect, of course, but it's responsive. It has impressed me a great deal more than the iPad 2 and either of the 2 Android based tablets that I have experienced.

Re:That was sad

[MrMickS]

iOS didn't succeed because it had a cult following. It succeeded because it delivered a unified experience that the user could understand and one that was far superior to the smartphones of the time. Apple has then iterated on this with each release. They've held back on features that they haven't deemed ready.

The problem for companies following has been that they've had to release something with at least as many features as the current version of iOS. That makes it harder to get everything right.

Re:That was sad

[Grizzley9]

WebOS failed on two fronts: WebOS failed where Apple succeeded because WebOS didn't have the cult following,

And why didn't WebOS have the "cult" following? Seems it/they should have spent more on marketing or at least making things that everyone wanted. The most technically superior product does not always win and thankfully so.

Re:That was sad

[sglewis100]

You should check out QNX on the Playbook -- It's undoubtedly rather heavily inspired by WebOS, and smooth as silk.

I think I'll wait for them to ship an email client first. I hear it's almost out.

Re:That was sad

[harperska]

I think that the fanboy crowd is much less important to the iPhone's success in 2011 than it was in 2007. I have a hard time believing that there are 37 million fanboys out there, and that's how many iPhones Apple sold last quarter. Fanboys are important at the beginning of a product's existence, as guinea pigs and evangelists. But depending on them alone is not sustainable in the long run, and to actually grow the product has to appeal to non-fanboys as well.

What WebOS didn't have that both iOS and Android have, which I believe is the main reason it failed, is a well established ecosystem. Android has the Android market as well as Google docs, Google voice, Google maps, etc. all integrated with a single Google ID. iOS has the App Store, as well as iTunes, iBooks, iCloud, etc. all integrated with a single Apple ID.

Smartphones today can't stand alone as isolated devices, even if they are really amazing devices. They need the rest of the ecosystem to survive. That's why WebOS failed, and why Windows Phone 7 is struggling. Both are pretty good systems. But they both lack the well established ecosystem that iOS and Android have.

Re:That was sad

[thoth]

WebOS failed where Apple succeeded because WebOS didn't have the cult following

I don't get constant references to Apple's "cult" following. To me that shows severe underestimation or misunderstanding of the actual customer base. A cult gets you an initial bump of excitement, a bunch of early adopters, etc. When you sell millions of units quarter after quarter after year after decade, that isn't a cult, that's producing stuff people want to buy, serving the actual existing marketplace; not some fantasy land that only exists in the minds of website critics. It comes across as some manifestation of jealousy or a raging inferiority complex.

Lack of "fanboy" support is why WebOS failed? Are you serious?

Re:That was sad

[narcc]

The Playbook has had email since day one. You're spreading total nonsense

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you'll find that QNX predates WebOS by a few years.

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Without Apples leagions of followers, thanks to their huge computer market segment, Apple would not have sold a single iPhone, especially when it was just a half-assed copy of all the other smart phones back then.

Re:That was sad

[sglewis100]

No, not really. It's almost ready, the native client that is. But until then, no corporate mail support in the Playbook. You have to tether a Blackberry phone to it. Don't have a Blackberry? Too bad. Battery on your phone dead? Too bad.

Like I said, I would wait for them to ship an email client first. Even HP shipped one for their tablet.

Re:That was sad

[narcc]

Yes, it did. You could download one of many apps and have email just like every other tablet. You could optionally tether it to a blackberry and get proper corporate email (unlike every other tablet, which couldn't even hope to do that). Bridge offered you better security anyway. If an employee loses a tablet, all your data is safe -- unlike every other tablet.

Sorry, you're judging email on the PlayBook by a totally different standard than you are other tablets. The PlayBook, from DAY ONE, could do email just as wel as every other tablet on the market. It could also do email better, thanks to Bridge.

You're spreading nonsense.

Re:That was sad

[sglewis100]

Yes, it did. You could download one of many apps and have email just like every other tablet. You could optionally tether it to a blackberry and get proper corporate email (unlike every other tablet, which couldn't even hope to do that). Bridge offered you better security anyway. If an employee loses a tablet, all your data is safe -- unlike every other tablet.

Sorry, you're judging email on the PlayBook by a totally different standard than you are other tablets. The PlayBook, from DAY ONE, could do email just as wel as every other tablet on the market. It could also do email better, thanks to Bridge.

You're spreading nonsense.

EVERY tablet except one ships with a native email client. This includes Android, iOS, WebOS, and even heavily modified Android tablets such as Kindle Fire and the Nook Tablet. There is no native email client on the Playbook, it will appear in version 2.

Android, iOS and WebOS have native Exchange support in their tablets out of the box. PlayBook does not.

What PlayBook does have in common with the others, is that there is no tablet with BES support. Including RIM's own tablet.

Tethering to my smart phone to read email is so far removed from ideal.

If an employee loses a tablet, all your data is safe -- unlike every other tablet.

That's what remote wipe is for. Besides, what happens when you lose your Blackberry phone. As if the data isn't stored there.

Have there been any widespread corporate (or consumer) adoptions of the PlayBook? From what I understand, people love Blackberry for email and BBM. I suspect that's why sales of the PlayBook are lagging. It has every feature you need except those two.

We obviously have differing opinions on what "it comes with email means", but to me, it means I open the box, and configure my email account. Absolutely IMAP, preferably Exchange, and in the case of a product marketed by RIM, BES support. Not download a third party client from the App Store. And not wait until version 2.0. Not "tether up your phone". Seems like a nice form factor - I have a Kindle Fire. If it did email, I might get one, if they are still selling them for $199.

By the way, it's a little messed up to have two CEOs. At least they fixed that. Also there was the promotion where you could order off their web site a PlayBook for $199. 16gb, 32gb or 64gb. All $199. That's a bit bizarre. I'm just not 100% getting it, sorry.

Re:That was sad

[Anonymous Coward]

I 100% believe that the palm pre died because of those god damn creepy commercials with the pasty chick on zoloft/panax/ambien and 2 glasses of wine. She looks alien because the idiots who set up the shoot had no light set up as a catch light so her eyes look like holes instead of shiny and the lighting makes her eyelashes and eyebrows disappear into her skin and makeup, it makes her look like an animated corpse with alopecia and a sweet wig. that combined with the introspective experiential dialogue made her too ethereal. the only people i know that liked this commercial would probably also be into date rape and necrophilia. Look up "palm pre creepy girl" if you don't know what i mean.

-S

Massive profits

[SlippyToad]

Courtesy of outsourcing manufacturing to China.

I'm a bass player. For years, it's been common that high-quality expensive gear is made in the US, and cheap knockoffs overseas.

Now, Apple has re-defined that. They will gouge your eyes out for high-quality (if you believe their absurd marketing schemes, that is) hardware that is still made overseas.

$13 billion in profits is probably not entirely derived from short-changing their American workforce (who seriously believes those things can't be made here -- I don't) and adding to the already bursting trade deficit.

I guess I shouldn't complain, though. In America, the land of milk and honey, it's now considered fortunate to have a shitty McJob. God forbid the middle class could afford the fruits of their own labor.

Re:Massive profits

[thestudio_bob]

I'm a bass player...

You lost me there. Everybody knows it's the drummer that has insight into everything.

Re:Massive profits

[Swampash]

Cause...

I'm a bass player

Meet effect...

it's now considered fortunate to have a shitty McJob

Re:Massive profits

[frank_adrian314159]

I'm a bass player. For years, it's been common that high-quality expensive gear is made in the US, and cheap knockoffs overseas.

So am I. Wait until the musical equipment manufacturers actually learn these lessons about quality. There will be no looking back.

Re:Massive profits

[tomhath]

He was a drummer, until he took an arrow to the knee

Re:Massive profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't ya know? Before the evil Chinese stole are jabs, bass players were all millionaires. Factory workers would work 4 hours a week and have enough money to pay off their house and send their kids to college.

Re:Massive profits

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Courtesy of outsourcing manufacturing to China.

Well then, all the companies that outsourced to China years before Apple did must be making even more money. I await you list of which do and which don't and why by tomorrow noon.

You save a lot of money with slave labor!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing cheaper than having people be driven to suicide by assembling your products for meager earnings, in a country so poor that there will always be somebody else ready to take their place.

Apple saved a lot of money by using manufacturing companies that treat their people terribly. On top of all that, they still pushed overpriced junk to the masses that gladly paid through the nose for a phone with a faulty antenna.

Good job Apple, I guess hurting others for personal gain doesn't impact you at all.

Re:You save a lot of money with slave labor!

[m.ducharme]

You do know that the income gap in China is narrowing, right? And it's widening in the US? Conditions in China are bad, but getting better. Conditions for workers in America are much better, but getting worse. Who's getting hurt here?

This is an expression of the free market at work, with a good dose of unintentional consequences for the corporate masters who shipped all the jobs overseas in hopes of getting cheap labour, thereby increasing the value of that labour, and slowly improving the lot of the workers there (at the expense of the workers back home, of course). All this crying and gnashing of teeth ignores the fact that conditions in China are improving for workers, and American workers don't like that.

The real problem isn't the shipping of jobs to one part of the world or another. The real problem is executive compensation. The leeches at the top pay themselves hundreds or possibly thousands of times the wages of the people at the bottom of the supply chain, instead of limiting themselves to something reasonable (but still quite a lot of money) and making sure that everyone else in the chain makes a decent standard of living.

Re:You save a lot of money with slave labor!

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that the income gap in China is narrowing, right? And it's widening in the US? Conditions in China are bad, but getting better. Conditions for workers in America are much better, but getting worse. Who's getting hurt here?

This is an expression of the free market at work, with a good dose of unintentional consequences for the corporate masters who shipped all the jobs overseas in hopes of getting cheap labour, thereby increasing the value of that labour, and slowly improving the lot of the workers there (at the expense of the workers back home, of course). All this crying and gnashing of teeth ignores the fact that conditions in China are improving for workers, and American workers don't like that.

The real problem isn't the shipping of jobs to one part of the world or another. The real problem is executive compensation. The leeches at the top pay themselves hundreds or possibly thousands of times the wages of the people at the bottom of the supply chain, instead of limiting themselves to something reasonable (but still quite a lot of money) and making sure that everyone else in the chain makes a decent standard of living.

That's not true.

Conditions are improving for Chinese workers though, there's no denying that. Urban living standards have risen in absolute terms, but the gap is growing fast.

Re:You save a lot of money with slave labor!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's reasons like this that I keep saying there should be a maximum pay cap. Say, half a million a year, absolute max you can earn, after all bonuses, gifts, etc. If you can't live on half a million a year, there's something severely wrong with you.

There's going to be an absolute metric ton of money 'left over'. Any excess money goes first to pay off debt... hey, we can say goodbye to the national debt in a few years. After that, all excess money goes into improving the country. Infrastructure, upgrading/building new buildings, upgrading networks, R&D, space, hell, experiments with terraforming the desert, anything that involves improving the country. Creates countless jobs, and generally everyone wins, except people who used to get paid over half a million a year.

But of course this would never work... those 1% damn well want to STAY the 1%, and will do absolutely anything to the other 99% in order to remain in their place of power.

Re:You save a lot of money with slave labor!

[ceoyoyo]

That's what you get when you let people decide their own salaries, with no oversight whatsoever. At least politicians have to balance giving themselves raises and being reelected.

It should be illegal to pay board members, and board members should set executive salaries. I'm not sure how you deal with board members of one company being executives at another and the whole club doing each other favours, but there must be a way.

Just where does your Android phone comes from?

[SuperKendall]

They are building all their products in China. What's so hard to figure about this?

So is everyone else. Everyone else is not enjoying this level of increase in profits quarter after quarter, or the same margins that Apple has.

Only Apple as far as I know has started moving any production (the A5 chip) back into the U.S.

OK, Foxconn will now pay the workers a few Renminbi more

They already do, and yet Apple's sales surge.

Re:Just where does your Android phone comes from?

[Anonymous Coward]

Another key thing to consider is the fact that all the design, marketing, research and testing is done in the United States, not China. China may have manufacturing jobs but they don't have higher value added services to move products on their own. We are just as dependent on China as they are on us.

Re:Just where does your Android phone comes from?

[_xeno_]

Only Apple as far as I know has started moving any production (the A5 chip) back into the U.S.

No, that would be Samsung that's doing that. And I don't know if you've noticed, but Apple and Samsung haven't been getting along that well recently. (Something about Apple thinking they own the rights to rounded corners in electronics or something.) It's unclear whether or not the A5 will continue to be manufactured by Samsung at all, let alone in Texas.

Re:Just where does your Android phone comes from?

[SuperKendall]

And I don't know if you've noticed, but Apple and Samsung haven't been getting along that well recently. (Something about Apple thinking they own the rights to rounded corners in electronics or something.)

"I dont' know if you've noticed" but that's a different division.

And the FACT is they are producing there.

It always amazes me when people cannot comprehend that companies have different divisions with wholly different motives.

It's unclear whether or not the A5 will continue to be manufactured by Samsung at all

It's not to anyone who understands contracts or large companies.

Re:Just where does your Android phone comes from?

[_xeno_]

"I dont' know if you've noticed" but that's a different division.

What, of Apple? Because it's Apple that's considering dropping Samsung as a chip fab. You might have read about that on Slashdot.

But technically you're right, I got the details slightly wrong. The A5 apparently contains some Samsung technology, so they'll continue to fab it. The rumor is that the A6 will be made by TSMC.

Support bombing Iran

[Anonymous Coward]

The massive rise in oil price will put Exxon back as number 1 for decades.

Paulbots my suck my Santorum covered cock.

Tasteless

[SuperKendall]

How did they "leverage the death" of Steve Jobs?

Seems to me that was only a negative for Apple, making a lot of people think the company would drift after that point.

It's not like Apple came out with a "Jobs Memorial iPhone". The only people who profited off Job's demise were a few turtleneck manufacturers and some doll makers.

Re:Tasteless

[mosb1000]

I think some book makers profited too.

Re:Tasteless

[SuperKendall]

Very good point, though I did not help them - I figure if I ever do want to read that book there a millions of copies now that will be flooding used book stores and library sales in the next year.

Re:Tasteless

[mosb1000]

you can have mine

Re:Tasteless

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, rumour is they're going to release the iPad 3 on his birthday. But no, they're not capitalizing at all.

Re:Tasteless

[Anonymous Coward]

You take rumor as fact - an anecdotal one by implication at that. You're going far in life son.

Re:Tasteless

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

It's a good rumor with lots of good sources.

Then again, lots of good rumors have come up empty handed in the past too.

But if you look at the nature of the business around the rumor, the announcement of the ipad3 being around the time of Jobs' birthday would just be moving things around a little. the iPads 1 and 2 got released in this time frame.

Apple is not that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys apple is not that bad at all. I can steve the inventor of century
http://rodney-sparrow.com

Shut down and give money back to shareholders

[dwenger]

Perhaps it's time to just shut down and distribute the cash to the shareholders. Clearly this company didn't know how to manage.... :)

Apple is DOOMED

[beltsbear]

Apple is DOOMED! :)

Re:Apple is DOOMED

[BasilBrush]

Or at least beleagured.

Windfall profits tax!

[chill]

When Exxon posted those profit numbers people were screaming for a windfall profits tax. Where are those people now? Probably listening to their iPod, tuned out to the world.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[Microlith]

Unlike Apple, Exxon deals in commodities with inelastic demand. It could be argued more readily, I suppose, that Apple actually earned those profits while Exxon gains them purely of virtue of having pumped it out of the ground. YMMV.

Personally, I would have more respect for Apple if they started paying a dividend.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[FunnyStrange]

Different situation. In that case, the oil companies made more profits not because they sold more product, but because world oil prices spiked artificially (due to OPEC, if I recall correctly). Apple sold more stuff by making stuff more people wanted than the competition.

They do have more than half their cash offshore. On the other hand, about 60% of their revenue was generated outside the US, so that might be fair.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[Dhalka226]

It's not the same thing, as other posters have mentioned, but hell, I'll do it: Time for a windfall profits tax.

This, on the heels of their attempt to pretend outsourcing most of their work force is about "making the best product" despite giving absolutely no examples other than things that save them money or make their little abuse-the-workers penises big, like the idea of corporate dormitories that the Chinese will wake up for them at any hour and force their employees into a twelve hour shift.

Really, guys? Somewhere in your 14 BILLION dollar profit-- last quarter --you couldn't find the funds to hire a couple of Americans? Fuck you. Time to go Robin Hood on fucks like this.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[quacking duck]

As others explained already, oil is a commodity. Regular gas costs the same whether you're well off and bought a decent new car for $25,000, or if you're a broke student forced to buy a used $500 clunker.

No one forces you to buy a luxury item, and people don't complain much about phone prices because there's plenty of choice, at different price points. They'll rant about the ridiculous monthly fees, of course.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

A shipment of iPads didn't tip over and destroy an entire ecosystem.

That's why.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[Archangel Michael]

Why should they pay dividend instead of buying the next two years of production of the newest greatest electronics from some innovative company? THAT is how they got to the top of the field in iDevices. Rumor has it they will build the plant, and the production run for the exclusive run of two (or whatever) years, so that NO other company can even offer anything even close.

Wait till the iPhone 5 comes out with 12 MP 3D camera* or something equally ridiculous, AND the software to do the 3D editing ...

(*Just a wild guess)

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[roman_mir]

You know the truth, which is that people don't like oil companies because they don't like paying for gas and for government oil companies are always an easy scapegoat - the evil 'speculators'.

Never mind that they are doing an amazing job of pumping out the stuff, shipping, refining it and delivering it without too many glitches to EVERYBODY EVERYDAY.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[AmiMoJo]

I'm all for higher taxes on companies, especially if it limits their ability to sue other competitors as part of their business model.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose, that Apple actually earned those profits while Exxon gains them purely of virtue of having pumped it out of the ground.

If you had any clue about the infrastructure required to pump that much crude out of the ground, ship it to refineries, turn it into gasoline, and then move that gas out to thousands upon thousands of gas stations on a daily basis so hundreds of millions of people can buy it on demand virtually anywhere at anytime, you wouldn't say that. Yeah, they're making a nice profit; but it cost that company billions upon billion dollars to build out that infrastructure over the better part of a century, and costs billions more annually to keep it running.

Yes, demand for gas is inelastic. Doesn't mean that it doesn't require a massive infrastructure to provide the product, or that making it is, in any way, easy. Given everything that's involved, even at $3.50/gallon here in the States, I'm still amazed that we can buy Exxon's product that cheap.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that Exxon tool billions of dollars in government subsidies the same year they reported huge profits and people demanded a windfall tax? Did you know that this is not the case with Apple?

If yes, you're kind of dishonest.

If no, you're too poorly informed to be talking about the subject.

Re:Windfall profits tax!

[coinreturn]

Really, guys? Somewhere in your 14 BILLION dollar profit-- last quarter --you couldn't find the funds to hire a couple of Americans? Fuck you. Time to go Robin Hood on fucks like this.

They have hired many more than "a few Americans." Haven't you heard about the new gigantic campus they're building to house employees?

Luckly, they are not an oil company

[Anonymous Coward]

Else Congress would pass (or try to pass) an excessive profits tax or some such, even though Apple's profit margin is much more than most of the major oil companies.

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/profit_margin
http://ycharts.com/companies/XOM/profit_margin

Re:Luckly, they are not an oil company

[reboot246]

Finally! Somebody on slashdot who knows the difference between profit and profit margin!!

Mark this day in your history book.

Slavery is great!

[Beelzebud]

It's easy to be highly profitable when your business model relies on slave labor.

Re:Slavery is great!

[jo_ham]

So the Android phones that are made in the same factory aren't as profitable.... why?

If it were solely down to the Chinese labour (who are not slaves btw, but we'll ignore the hyperbole) then there would be considerably more highly profitable electronics manufacturers.

Re:Slavery is great!

[koan]

Because Apple creates an aura around their products with excellent marketing and design, just watch the way people fondle their iPhones/iPads it's pornographic, and if they're not the type to fondle the seriously pose with it.

Re:Slavery is great!

[frnic]

Then if it is that easy, I assume you will be posting a billion a week profit soon.

Re:Slavery is great!

[Anonymous Coward]

They may not be slaves, but they are treated like absolute shit.

Re:Slavery is great!

[Beelzebud]

No thanks, I have morals. I'd rather stay me, than be a profiteer of slave labor.

Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

We are LONG overdue for America to implement a scaled tariff. Basically, These are tariffs that target nations that we have large deficits with, but in particular, those that manipulate their money and markets against us:

This would not only restore manufacturing, but it would also improve our tax base, rather quickly. Finally, it would force nations that we have supposed open markets with that manipulate against us to change their behaviors.
So, for our top 20 nations that we trade with, this would punish the following:

• China - 36%
• Venezuela - 28%
• Italy - 25%
• Germany - 24%
• India - 22%
• Japan - 16%
• South Africa - 14%
• Mexico - 13%
• France - 12%
• Taiwan - 8%

While giving other nations like Canada a pass:

• Argentina,
• Australia,
• Belgium,
• Brazil,
• Canada,
• Hong Kong,
• Luxembourg,
• Netherlands,
• Singapore,
• South Korea,
• United Kingdom

Interestingly, this is legal PER WTO. WTO's position is that when a nation's trade deficit is larger than 10% with another, than you may take action.

The trick here is to convince the neo-cons that are attached to China's pants to let go and back America instead. Right now, far too many neo-cons are the ones blocking efforts at a balanced trade. In addition, without a budget deficit below 500 billion (or so), this probably becomes impossible to do.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[jo_ham]

Or instead of crippling yourselves with trade manipulation you could just repeal the Bush Era Tax Cuts - there's 2 trillion right there, that barely touches the bottom 90% of earners and yet will cost the US 2 trillion dollars - more than twice the "expensive, wasteful, ill-affordable" healthcare bill.

Get your house in order before blaming countries like Germany, who have built a very strong export economy, for harming your own. You'd hardly say that Germany was in the position it's in by being like China in the way it goes about becoming a large net exporter - this is not simply about "restoring manufacturing" - it's not as simple as that by a long shot.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[CharlyFoxtrot]

Because protectionism worked out so well in the past ? How about you just tax the hell out of the assholes profiting from sending all the manufacturing oversees until they get with the program instead of giving them tax breaks ?

Re:Scaled Tariff

[pommiekiwifruit]

Is this some post from the future, where Italy, Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg all have their own currencies that they are manipulating? I know the Euro is a bit weak but it hasn't actually split up yet! And an attempt to impose different tariffs on different members of the EU is just asking for middlemen to work their way around that (and piss off the commission obviously). I will refrain from commenting on the merits of protectionism itself.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[artor3]

The Republicans took millions of people hostage last time we even talked about reducing the Bush tax cuts. They'd burn the country to the ground before allowing them to be dropped entirely.

When ~50% of your government is insane, evil, or both, the best course of action is usually unavailable. We've got to work with what we've got.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[RobertinXinyang]

What is interesting to me, with the continual WTO talk, is that imports are taxed heavily in China. The item does not even need to be an imported product, it only needs to be an imported brand.

This means that even if the product is made entirely in China, if the brand is significantly foreign owned then the item is taxed at a rate that is equal to the amount that is projected to leave China due to the purchase. Tax code is actually a bit more complicated than this; but that is basically how it works.

This allows the Chinese branded competitors to the American and German brands to establish their production process, allowing them to compete internationally. To the Chinese consumer the result is higher prices.

Part of the reason for the higher prices is that the Chinese manufacturer does not need to offer the item at a lower price, or even the the same price as the, Chinese made, item is sold for in the US and EU.Like I have mentioned here before, it is cheaper for me to have friends in America purchase items like smart-phones and computer and mail them to me in China than to purchase the item in China. Even most household goods, other than the most basic items manufactured by "not for export" companies, are more expensive in China.

Right now China is playing both sides, they are calling to the WTO when anyone considering responding to China's practices and the results of those practices. At the same time China is crying, "oh, pity poor China," when anyone considers demanding that China obey the same rules that it demands that others abide by.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Anonymous Coward]

you could just repeal the Bush Era Tax Cuts And give it to dipshits who for 3 years have decided 'oh fuck it we dont need a budget and 15 trillion over is JUST FINE'....

Sorry the less they get the better.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

So, by YOUR definition, the solution for the TRADE deficit (which has shipped massive number of jobs to China), is to instead focus on our federal deficit? And PER WTO agreements, once trade is differentiated by 10%, then it is permitted to do this. IOW, this is not only legal, but SMART to do.

If nothing else, think about it this way: How smart is it to help drive large partners into the ground by blocking YOUR markets? I would say that it is a mistake. And yes, Germany DOES have blocks in the way.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

Well, lets see. Last time it was massive protectionism against all nations based on product lines. Now, we are talking about tariffs on all products from nations that manipulate. As the trade between the 2 nations have come back into line, the tariffs drop. Simple and easy way to solve things.

as to taxing those companies, they simply move their HQs. Issue solved for them.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

This is actually not about just currency manipulation. There are other ways to block trade. This is about the fact that trade is not fully 2 ways. Also, you will note that if we trade with a nation that has more than 10% deficit with us, I would rather see them put up a scaled tariff and get the trade to balance a bit. It actually makes sense that we want to have nations be somewhat close.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see, 2 trillion over 10 years vs. Obama overspending by 1.6 trillion EVERY year (total of 16 trillion in 10 years)

Yet, that would solve all but 14 trillion of overspending over the next 10 years.

Math is obviously not a popular subject amongst /. posters.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[jo_ham]

No, not at all - the trade deficit needs to be addressed as well as the federal deficit.

However, the solution to a trade gap is not protectionism. It may help in the short term, and appear to be an ideal solution but it only hurts the economy as a whole and stifles growth. It may be legal, but it's not smart.

Your assertion that imposing import tariffs punitively on strong export economies as the solution to America's own trade gap is simply naive. There's a reason that countries like Germany have a strong net exporting economy, and it's not protectionism. Hobbling the imports from strong economies is also not the way to pull yourselves up to be able to compete.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[guidryp]

We are LONG overdue for America to implement a scaled tariff. Basically,
These are tariffs that target nations that we have large deficits with, but in particular, those that manipulate their money and markets against us:

So, for our top 20 nations that we trade with, this would punish the following:

• China - 36%

The US is not going to do anything to upset China, the US are completely dependent on China for financing and manufacturing for just about every "American" company.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

I would have modded you up, had it not been myself that did this originally. China is the large problem. They are a developed nation that wants to act like an undeveloped while using economy against the west. Smart on their part, since the leadership is in a cold war with the west.

What is interesting is that WTO's rules allow us to do this tariff. Turns out that if a nation has more than 10% trade deficit, then they can put tariffs against that nation. Now, in the past, it has been allow about product lines, but I think that this is better. By putting up a scaled tariff , and getting nations on an even keel, it helps all.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

Actually, you are wrong. For example, Brazil, China, South Africa, Poland, South Korea, and India STILL have loads of tariffs in place. In fact, when Clinton cut the FTA with China, China had in less than 90. Now, they have over 400. When it comes to money manipulation, you will see nearly all of Asia doing loads of manipulation, but even mexico and EU do it.

And yes, it is not only smart, but needed. It is actually stupid that such trade deficits exists. It actually harms all of the nations that have large trade imbalance. Now, considering EU's position, I doubt that we would impose a large tariff on EU. We want you folks to pull out of your situation. HOWEVER, it is insane that we have such a horrible trade deficit. It helps neither of us.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

No, we are not. Not even close to that.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[avandesande]

Trade imbalances are a mathematical problem, not a political one.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[shutdown -p now]

However, the solution to a trade gap is not protectionism. It may help in the short term, and appear to be an ideal solution but it only hurts the economy as a whole and stifles growth.

Examples? This seems to be an oft-quoted talking point, but I've seen few evidence to support it.

I do have a counter example. Brazil has high import tariffs, which apply, among other things, to Apple products. Did Apple pull out of Brazil? Hell no. Foxconn is building a factory in the country now so that they can manufacture locally and dodge the tarrifs. End result: numerous local jobs which feed right back into the country's economy, and, of course, all those workers pay taxes, too.

It's perfectly logical, too. Apple can outsource manufacturing to China to cut costs, but they can't sell as many of their gadgets there as they'd like to (to make profits like the one in TFA). They need rich countries for that - the kinds of countries where workers are not overworked and starved so they have interest in fancy gadgets like that, and paid well so that they can afford them. So if you just make that particular method of cutting costs unprofitable - via tariffs, for example - you'll see manufacturing plants in U.S. and Europe in no time.

And no, you can't compete with China otherwise. Not unless you are willing to bring the standard of living down of their level - and not to the level of Chinese middle class, which is the lucky 200 million; but down to the level of those factory workers, who think of their 12 hour job as God's grace compared to what they face otherwise.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Anonymous Coward]

Respectfully, are you aware of how the European Union actually works? Germany/France/Italy don't have personal tariffs, these are the same as the ones for non-manipulative countries, i.e. Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands. The EU as an organization is a separate member of the WTO.

According to the EU law, you can import to whichever member state you wish and sell wherever you want. As an example, Apple had an exclusivity deal in Belgium with one of the mobile operators (Mobistar) and it was circumvented by another one (Base) by "importing" iPhones from its mother company in the Netherlands - there can be no trade restrictions within the single market of the EU.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[makomk]

Have you ever read any comments by a Brazilian geek, or indeed one from any other country with this kind of high import tariffs? The main effect is that prices of consumer electronics are so inflated as to be unaffordable to most of the population.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Anonymous Coward]

It would appear that if the yanks are going to do "scaled tariffs", they should do one against European Union instead of picking nations from EU.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Registered Coward v2]

We are LONG overdue for America to implement a scaled tariff. Basically, These are tariffs that target nations that we have large deficits with, but in particular, those that manipulate their money and markets against us: This would not only restore manufacturing, but it would also improve our tax base, rather quickly. Finally, it would force nations that we have supposed open markets with that manipulate against us to change their behaviors.

Right - add a deadweight loss to our economy and make people pay more for goods so their net purchasing power goes down. A tarrif isn't going to bring manufacturing back; all it will do is reduce overall demand and leave consumers worse off.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[MrMickS]

Get your house in order before blaming countries like Germany, who have built a very strong export economy, for harming your own. You'd hardly say that Germany was in the position it's in by being like China in the way it goes about becoming a large net exporter - this is not simply about "restoring manufacturing" - it's not as simple as that by a long shot.

Some of Germany's export economy is fostered by the issues with the Euro currency. The impact of the doubts on the Southern European economies (Greece/Portugal/Spain/Italy) weakens the Euro. This allows Germany's powerful economy to benefit from advantageous exchange rates when exporting. If the Euro crisis eases, or some of the weaker economies leave altogether, Germany's export advantage will dry up and their economy may run into issues of their own.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[jo_ham]

No, all it does is drive the prices of those electronics beyond the reach of most of your population.

Take steel tariffs for example - you can put massive import duties on foreign steel to protect your national steel makers, but all this does in the long term is drive up the price of steel, which is felt further along the chain by the construction industry (or anyone who buys steel to make things). They either eat that cost or they pass it on to their consumers. If you artificially set the price of steel then very little in the way of efficiency or modernisation then happens (at least voluntarily) - why bother when the price of your product is protected by tariffs.

Meanwhile, the cheaper steel is now in lower demand and other countries with no serious import tariffs on it can buy it for less. Your own country is then also less able to manage price fluctuations, since the domestic makers are banking on the forced high price.

So to bring it back to Apple - no, they didn't pull out of Brazil, but the net result is even more unaffordable products. If you think the price of Apple goods are expensive in the US, just wait until you see them in proportion to a Brazillian average income.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[jo_ham]

Good in theory, but they were already a very strong export economy before the Euro, and before the major implosions of some of the weaker, US-like-on-taxation economies (like Ireland, and to an extreme extent, Greece) imploded. Of course they were in favour of it as a very large and stable economy at the heart of the European economic engine, but to claim that it's purely down to them making hay off the back of weaker Euro economies is simply disingenuous.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

And yet, that is not the case in nations that implement them. In particular, China, Brazil, South Africa, and India have had them in place for quit some time. However, the nation with the MOST tariffs is China. I would say that a scaled tariff in which we only raise them against nations with large surpluses against the US would be the way to go, rather than go with product lines (which is about protecting industries).

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. Obama overspent 1.6 trillion for 10 years? He hasn't even been *President* for 4 years yet!

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

That is correct on BOTH OF THESE. The problem is when you put on tariffs on PRODUCTS. That is what many nations do to protect industry. To balance the trade deficit, instead, you put tariff on regions esp. those that are manipulating (overtly or covertly).

Re:Scaled Tariff

[feepness]

Or instead of crippling yourselves with trade manipulation you could just repeal the Bush Era Tax Cuts

You mean the Obama era tax cuts.

The Bush era tax cuts expired two years ago.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[jo_ham]

Nice buck passing.

Where's that image meme of Bush with the tagline "I fucked it all up but thanks for blaming it on the black guy".

Ideally Obama wouldn't have extended them, but he really had no choice - you saw that the Tea Party were willing to force the country to default over taxes, and you think he'd be able to pass a 2 trillion dollar tax hike for rich people?

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Registered Coward v2]

And yet, that is not the case in nations that implement them. In particular, China, Brazil, South Africa, and India have had them in place for quit some time. However, the nation with the MOST tariffs is China. I would say that a scaled tariff in which we only raise them against nations with large surpluses against the US would be the way to go, rather than go with product lines (which is about protecting industries).

Let's take Brazil for example, - they raised tariffs on computers - so Foxconn built a factory there. Some workers get jobs and Brazil gets a factory; but many more people can't buy tablets because they are more expensive than they would be if Brazil let the cheaper ones in. In the end, it's a deadweight loss because every tablet sold costs more than it should in a free market. Companies that do buy them need to charger more for their products because the computers they use cost them more. So, for a few jobs you add to the cost of production for everyone else.

If tariffs worked, a country could simply tax its way out of unemployment by eliminating any imports. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. All it does is add cost with no added value.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[WindBourne]

They raised tariffs on just about everything, except where they were the lowest (sugar). One area is aviation. You will find that Brazil has a thriving aviation industry.
As to computers, you will find that PRIOR to their tariffs, they had not real hardware or software industry. However, with the tariffs, it has created loads ot new industries there. Now, are tablets more expensive? Yup. But those tariffs are coming down. And then prices will drop.

Brazil's situation improved because they put up tariffs. They have no intention to keep them up there, but they are using it to protect markets while building. the same is done in China, India, South Africa, etc. The difference is that what is suggested with the SCALED tariffs is that whereever we have massive trade deficits, we do a scale on it. As the deficits drop, then so do the tariffs. And yes, it DOES work.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[Registered Coward v2]

They raised tariffs on just about everything, except where they were the lowest (sugar). One area is aviation. You will find that Brazil has a thriving aviation industry. As to computers, you will find that PRIOR to their tariffs, they had not real hardware or software industry. However, with the tariffs, it has created loads ot new industries there. Now, are tablets more expensive? Yup. But those tariffs are coming down. And then prices will drop. Brazil's situation improved because they put up tariffs. They have no intention to keep them up there, but they are using it to protect markets while building. the same is done in China, India, South Africa, etc. The difference is that what is suggested with the SCALED tariffs is that whereever we have massive trade deficits, we do a scale on it. As the deficits drop, then so do the tariffs. And yes, it DOES work.

The problem is as tariffs drop the low cost producers move back it. In the long run, they fail to work and add a significant burden to the economy. Of course, producers always try to find a reason to keep tariffs in place; because long term survival depends on it since they really aren't competitive with other countries. While tariffs produce short term gains for companies they don't produce sustainable advantages and cost the rest of the country in the form of higher prices.

Even with tariffs, something like 1/3 of all Brazilians live under the poverty level; and Embrear suffered loss last quarter.

Re:Scaled Tariff

[feepness]

All Obama had to do was... nothing. As we heard at the time often, this wasn't a tax hike. It was a tax cut expiration. Obama and the Democratic Congress created and passed a bill to extend them.

At the time the Obama tax cuts were passed, Democrats had complete control of the Senate with regards to submitting legislation.

What's good for the goose

[YrWrstNtmr]

A couple of years ago, there was much screeching about Exxon's excessive profits. "I want to take those profits and..."

Why not the same here? I guess it's just evil oil vs. cool iPhones.

Re:What's good for the goose

[Swampash]

The world's, and particularly the USA's, economy depends on oil. There is no alternative. The world needs oil. If the oil stops, everything falls apart. In other words, whatever the cost of oil is people will buy it. They don't have a choice.

If Apple stops, people will use a competitor's products. No big deal.

(see: "elasticity of demand")

Re:What's good for the goose

[koan]

Nothing Apple makes is necessary, oil is.

Re:What's good for the goose

[BasilBrush]

It wasn't Exxon's excessive profits, it was Exxon's "windfall" profits.

Windfall: A piece of unexpected good fortune, typically one that involves receiving a large amount of money.

Exxon's profits came about because oil is fungible, and the world oil price soared due to events in the middle east. Not because they became more successful at selling oil. It was unexpected good fortune.

Apple on the other hand were successful at selling more product. It wasn't unexpected good fortune, it was expected (by them) earnings.

Re:What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

Ta dah! Reality, folks. Ugly, but there you have it. No oil, no goodies. And certainly no space fantasies either. You'll be growing tomatoes on your roof and putting diapers on your horse instead.

Re:What's good for the goose

[UnknowingFool]

The screeching was because at the same time Exxon was making record profits, they were collecting subsidies from the US government. Also Exxon is no longer a US company. On paper they moved to Switzerland even though all their personnel still work and reside in Houston, Texas.

Re:What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.

So an AC can point out the fact that you're making errors in judgement and you won't learn from the experience? You'll just keep on making ignorant statements? The people rolling their eyes at you simply pop out of existence like baby's game of peek-a-boo, do they?

You don't see anything wrong with that notion?

No. I guess you don't.

Anyway, it's not successful sales which are making Apple rich. It's the successful application of slavery. And not just at the manufacturing level, (which is among the most atrocious in the world), but at the media level as well. The ridiculously huge percentages of every scrap of media sale leaves, as per usual, the actual hard-working creators almost entirely out of the loop. Sustenance wages are the same as slavery. Media providers even have to supply their own bandwidth.

The lazy psychopath excels by manipulating others out of their own legitimate work.

Apple is nothing but a big con-job in action. They can't die soon enough. Fortunately, they will.

Re:What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple stops, tech advancement slows greatly. Do you remember what phones were like before the iPhone? Do you think tablets would even exist without the iPad? These may not be civilization-critical, but it takes a pretty good bias to discount Apple's impact altogether.

And, if we're throwing out unsupported and naive assertions, I say that if oil stops, people will switch to other sources of energy. Duh.

Re:What's good for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

And if Exxon stops, people will use their competitor's products.

(I can't see how your argument is valid when your comparing a single company to whole entire industry)..

Cue Corporate Tax Debate

[love05mustang]

Since we are in the season full tax disclosure, I wonder how much Apple pays ?

Re:Cue Corporate Tax Debate

[Dinghy]

Well when you consider that they keep two thirds of their profits/cash offshore, it's pretty easy to say that they don't pay as much as they should.

Re:Cue Corporate Tax Debate

[AshtangiMan]

How much revenue is attributed to offshore sales? If the ratios are in line then do you still think there is a problem? I don't know what they are, but China's middle/ upper class is about the size of the entire US population, so I'm thinking that its at least possible that a bunch of Apple's revenue comes from overseas.

Re:Cue Corporate Tax Debate

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple pays vastly more than they should. Any dollar they keep is a dollar that doesn't get spent on wars and violating our civil rights.

Re:Cue Corporate Tax Debate

[UnknowingFool]

Americas $17.7B
Europe $11.2B
Japan $3.6B
Asian Pacific $7.7B
Retail $6.1B

Hedge Fund

[igothandle]

Apple's short term investments essentially make it a very huge hedge fund.

Re:Hedge Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like your penis makes you a woman? Since you're redefining words willy-nilly...

It isn't Wednesday yet...

[iCEBaLM]

... It's still Tuesday....

Re:It isn't Wednesday yet...

[rjmnz]

... It's still Tuesday....

Um, my computer is happily displaying Wed Jan 25 1:52pm (synced to a timeserver).

I just happen to be on the other side of the dateline (NZ)

Re:It isn't Wednesday yet...

[Cimexus]

A fair point (and I'm in Australia, so it's Wednesday here too), but the summary still seems odd, given that it links to an announcement on apple.com (i.e. the main, American domain for an American company, who presumably would tag press releases and market statements in a US time zone, given that they trade on the US share market).

My crystal ball says...

[Daniel Phillips]

My crystal ball, tuned to the year 2025, says that this quarter will in fact prove to be the most profitable quarter of Apple's entire history.

Re:My crystal ball says...

[Krau Ming]

well Steve Jobs is so rich he actually had crystal balls. true story.

Seriously? iPhones are Oil?

[bussdriver]

OIL the life's blood of ... all of us! Comparing that to the non-essential iPhone of hipsters of the world?

It takes about 10 calories of oil for 1 calorie of food you eat. per day. every day. The industrial revolution's fuels made the population boom possible. Oil is about LIFE; because we built this teetering world population upon an Oil foundation.

Oil was fraudulently priced too highly during an increased demand which stressed the already fragile world economy. Demand didn't raise the price of oil; they did and bribed anybody who knew better who could do anything about it.

They could just jack up the price tomorrow with no excuse what so ever and they would get it because its a NECESSITY (to avoid too much revolt, they do not push it any further than the edge of tolerance...) I bet they could hit 20 billion and not get enough congressmen to DO anything to them for a few more million in bribes.

AAPL is still cheap

[SuperKendall]

Why should shareholders care? It's not like they're paying dividends, and it's not like it's reasonable or affordable to buy into Apple at the current sky high share price.

The price of AAPL is currently as low as it's possible for the physics of money (if you will) to allow.

Just as you can predict exactly how much time it will take a satellite in orbit to be pulled to earth by gravity, you can predict AAPL will go up quarter after quarter, as Apple continues to increase profit and thus drags along the minimum price that AAPL sells at.

I mean right now, just based on Apple's historically lowballed guidance for the next quarter, I can predict in one quarter Apple's share price will be higher than it is now.

I already bought some more just a bit below $400, because I knew this Q it would be dragged up.

Ignore the advice if you want, just trying to help you understand....

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[hedwards]

That's precisely why I don't own any shares of Apple. As soon as people start acting like there's a sure thing you can be pretty sure that the price is already way too high.

There have been a few very significant changes at Apple lately which lead me to suspect that it might not continue going up much longer. One they lost their CEO and the individual that drove the branding and marketing for Apple.Apple is mostly marketing, they rarely if ever do anything first and most of the time they way over price the items they sell, depending upon name recognition and glamor to pull it off. I'm not so sure that they're going to be able to continue that without Steve. Sure, they may very well, but so far I don't have any reason to assume so.

Then there's been the patent trolling and general dickishness of Apple trying to kill Android. It's going to come back to haunt them in the future in terms of increased competition and damaged image. I personally, am not going to be recommending Apple products any time soon, which makes it somewhat difficult as I don't generally recommend MS products either.

Lastly, stocks have a nasty tendency to regress to the mean over time and the more people view the money as guaranteed the more likely that it is that there's going to be a correction. Right now, if you want money, MSFT is a much better buy than AAPL is.

Will this lead to AAPL taking a bit of a dive, I don't know, it's hard to really figure out how long delusion is going to last before it finally comes into contact with reality.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[sgbett]

I agree with your premise. However I don't agree that it applies to AAPL (yet).

However good there growth has been (and don't get me wrong its been pretty amazing last few years) its entirely justified given their valuation metrics.

The thing is whichever way you slice it there isn't a single metric that would suggest they are overpriced. This kind of growth in a company is unprecedented and it is for that reason the share price is lagging. People are irrational, the market is irrational. My take is that people are too scared to buy because they think the price has gone to high too fast. They are still nervous. There are still plenty of skeptics.

Once the market catches up with reality, we'll see the next level of growth. It will be fast outpacing everything we've seen so far as everyone decides that maybe they are that dead cert, and that's when we'll over shoot. Probably about the same time that revenue and profit plateau (Which has to happen at some point!). Of course people will ignore this, caught in the euphoria and continue to pile in cash as its now 'a sure thing' share price will go insane.

Then its time to panic. Now, not so much.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[sootman]

> As soon as people start acting like there's a sure thing you
> can be pretty sure that the price is already way too high.

Some people look at a slot machine that hasn't paid off in a long time and say "it's due!" and play it.

Some people look at a slot machine that just paid out and say "it's hot!" and play it.

Years ago people were saying that AAPL at $100 was way to high and no way could it maintain that level. Have you seen what's happened since then? That's the funny thing about growth--there's always the possibility for more of it. Sometimes it's more likely than others, but it's always possible.

Have you been paying attention to how Apple has been doing for the last decade? Do you fail to grasp that they just had a quarter that was 50% higher than their highest quarter ever? That only one company has EVER had a more profitable quarter in U.S. history? You really think you can get that high on a combination of marketing, dumb luck, and Christmas? And that it's gonna wear off in a hurry?

> Will this lead to AAPL taking a bit of a dive, I don't know

Look at the size of the smartphone market compared to the size of the entire cell phone market; the growth of the smartphone market, and Apple's position in that market. Then do the same for iPads versus PCs. Apple is doing just fine without Steve Jobs and they will continue to do so. With the potential growth in those two markets we may well be talking about a $100B quarter for them in a few years. You might think you're pretty bright but I guarantee you there are some really smart people inside Apple right now, and they have a lot more experience than you and access to infinitely better information than you.

You obviously don't like Apple and that's fine--I'm not happy with how sue-happy they've become lately either--but to look at the numbers that came out of today's call and say "It's all downhill from here!" is nothing short of insanity.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Algae_94]

There is such a thing as a stock split. They can split the shares to any fraction to get the stock price anywhere they want it. There's a reason Exxon-Mobil is ~$87, they split the shares periodically. The question then is, why would apple want to keep the share price in the several hundred dollar range? Is it to show people exactly how much growth they are missing out on by not being a shareholder? Are they trying to make the company look more like a luxury with a high price tag? Do they just not care, or are there some fees involved that they don't want to pay? I don't know.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Algae_94]

and access to infinitely better information than you.

This strikes me as a bit of hyperbole. Do the people at Apple truly know all the information in the universe?

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[foniksonik]

So you're basically saying "buy low sell high" ? Did you really have to participate in all the FUD for that?

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[SuperKendall]

I'm pretty sure they simply do not care; Apple does not act like a company that cares what shareholders think (which is to their credit).

It is funny how stock splits almost always end up bumping value, while reverse stock splits do the opposite...

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is mostly marketing

Not this crap again. Apple is demonstrably mostly design and engineering. Making good products that people enjoy isn't "marketing".

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

... and most of the time they way over price the items they sell,

Ahh. You really don't get business, do you? It's not overpriced if it's selling. You can argue that the valuation doesn't make sense to you, but it makes sense to a huge number of people. It's only overpriced it it's not selling. Heck, they could probably bump the price up by $5 or $10 and not take a hit on the sales, so it might be arguably underpriced. But I'm not going to bet against these guys, this is what they do, and they do it better than anyone else right now.

I don't want to bust your chops here, but Apple knows more about pricing than you do.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[sootman]

That, or the GP actually has no information and I was dividing by zero. ;-)

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

>> As soon as people start acting like there's a sure thing you can be pretty sure that the price is already way too high.

Or you could actually look at the stock's valuation objectively instead of sticking your head in the sand. Based on P/E and their insane cash pile, Apple is not overvalued.

>> It's going to come back to haunt them in the future in terms of increased competition and damaged image.

The consumer neither knows nor cares one iota.

>> Lastly, stocks have a nasty tendency to regress to the mean over time

Uhh... What? That might make some bit of sense if their earnings weren't increasing every year.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that their product matures too fast (2-3 years, also due to telco's contract periods) and cannot generally be resold. Which means, if the general population suddenly finds the iPhone to be 'uncool', market share can be evaporated in 2 years.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[coinreturn]

and access to infinitely better information than you.

This strikes me as a bit of hyperbole. Do the people at Apple truly know all the information in the universe?

Of course! The address is 1 Infinite Loop.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

There is such a thing as a stock split. They can split the shares to any fraction to get the stock price anywhere they want it. There's a reason Exxon-Mobil is ~$87, they split the shares periodically. The question then is, why would apple want to keep the share price in the several hundred dollar range? Is it to show people exactly how much growth they are missing out on by not being a shareholder? Are they trying to make the company look more like a luxury with a high price tag? Do they just not care, or are there some fees involved that they don't want to pay? I don't know.

Maybe it's because they don't buy the bullshit "shareholder value above all" line. They make their products for their customers, the stock price goes up because of it. Other companies make everything to please the shareholders, the customer is second in line.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[hedwards]

No, what I'm saying is that if you think you've got a sure thing, save your money and buy something else because you haven't thoroughly researched it. I'm sure if folks buy Apple now they'll be able to make a profit. I just don't buy the notion that it's as safe as people think or that the possible profits are sufficient to outweigh the inherent risk of buying a stock that's been pumped up.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[hedwards]

No, I get business. And the problem is that in the future they're going to have to make a switch from luxury good to commodity and they've already done that in terms of the build quality. In some markets they're so dominant that their products have become synonymous with the market.

Products can be luxury items or they can be incredibly popular, in the long term you don't typically see products that can do both. Sure it's working for them right now, but I see no reason to assume that they'll always be able to get away with it. At some point people start to actually look at the products and compare them with the competition and that hasn't been Apple's strong point in a really, really long time.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[hedwards]

They have a pile of cash which is incredibly problematic for their business model. Piles of cash don't grow the company. A business like Apple is theoretically about acquisitions and R&D. Piles of cash help with the former, but at a certain point that money becomes a wasted resource. I take it you haven't noticed what MS does with it's piles of cash.

The consumer is going to start caring about the competition when they can't get the device they wanted. And the image, honestly, I'm less sanguine than you are about Apple being able to continue to gloss over the crap build quality, anti-consumer interfaces and just general bad behavior.

And how long precisely do you think that's going to happen? Eventually companies can't out do what they previously earned, and anybody dumb enough to own shares in AAPL when that happens is likely to lose a lot of money.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[blueg3]

They split their shares a couple of times in... early 2000s maybe? Maybe late 90s. (Okay, I looked it up: 2000 and 2005.) Apparently they don't do it any more because having high per-share prices is trendy in tech companies.

To an extent, it doesn't matter. Most individual investors these days (the only ones who would invest a small amount of money) purchase securities through pooled investment vehicles like mutual funds and ETFs.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[ceoyoyo]

"Apple is mostly marketing, they rarely if ever do anything first and most of the time they way over price the items they sell"

Apple is mostly DESIGN. If they lose Sir Ive, I'll be worried. It IS worrisome that they've put the bean counter in charge, but he has been at Apple a long time and most of the rest of the company's leadership seems to be perfectionists just like Jobs.

Apple does not overprice their products. The iPad is apparently priced so aggressively that competitors claim they can't compete. Flagship Android phones are priced very similarly to flagship iPhones. Intel's attempts to compete with the Air aren't going so well. If you want a look at companies that actually DO depend on image, take a stroll into a store like Burberry sometime. The iPad cases cost more than iPads.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[Gilmoure]

I sold my 60 odd shares of apple when they hit $19/share. Sigh.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[V-similitude]

It is funny how stock splits almost always end up bumping value, while reverse stock splits do the opposite...

Not so funny. The primary reason a stock splits is that it's going up, so makes sense that it'd keep going up. And reverse splits happen when a stock is already dropping. Correlation, not causation.

Re:AAPL is still cheap

[toriver]

Do the people at Apple truly know all the information in the universe?

Not until Siri comes out of beta.

Foxconn celebrates

[Anonymous Coward]

with a 21 suicide salute to Apple.

Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[perpenso]

Of course some people seem to think that Windows and Android are winning.

It all depends on your definition of winning. One of the analysts covering the mobile industry was being interviewed on CNBC after Apple reported their quarterly results. This analyst claimed that 94% of current iPhone users would buy another iPhone but only 47% of current Android users would by another Android device.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard that 50% of wp7 users also likes his phone.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[poetmatt]

and 99% of statistics are made up of 100% imagination or are 100% inaccurate.

nice try though.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Flytrap]

The reason for the high rate of defection is not because Android is not as good as iOS, but rather because so many people pick up free (on a two year contract) low end Android devices and those really tend to be very bad.

Google has done such a great job of showing people what a great platform Android is that people start to think that every Android handset is like a Galaxy S. Many people are still picking up no-name-brand Chinese specials running an outdated version of Android and cursing their decision everyday. Not every Android device is a Galaxy S2... and consumers need to realise that.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[MaskedSlacker]

and consumers need to realise that.

No, they don't. That sort of water-brained thinking is the reason the iPhone does so well in spite of its imposed limitations.

Android vendors need to explain this to customers. Customers have no duty to understand what Samsung, HTC, and Motorola fail (intentionally I think) to communicate to them.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Sancho]

I bought a Droid shortly after they came out. My wife bought an iphone right around the same time.

I was cursing the Droid probably 6 months after I got it. The thing was just slow, unresponsive, and sucked.

Fast forward last fall. The Droid was locking up constantly, while the iPhone was still quite responsive and felt like new (almost--two major OS revisions had slowed it down a bit.) I couldn't ditch Android fast enough.

It's not just the low end phones.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Because who needs to replace an Android phone? Planned obsolescence is an Apple feature.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. We have a Google Nexus at work.. I was impressed at the speed at first, but put a couple things on there and it becomes quite slow and choppy.

That said my iPhone 4 isn't all roses and butterflies either. It has about a hundred apps on it, but it seems to be getting slower too. Not sure if it's iOS 5, or it just needs a restore, but it's definitely not as buttery as when it was new.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

No... It's also the idiot users.

Android gives app developers enough rope to hang themselves with. That translates to a more diverse app market.

Put another way: The good thing about Android is there are way more apps than there are for the iPhone. This is a double edged sword because there are way more shitty apps than there are for the iPhone.

If you go 6 months without doing a factory reset & installing any app that crosses your path: your performance will be predictably slow, battery life bad, and stability poor.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[DurendalMac]

Only if you're willing to hack your Android phone with potentially daunting procedures and unsupported installs. The 3GS is about two and a half years old and it's still running the latest iOS. I don't know if there's a single Android handset as old running officially running the latest release. Really, you don't think that Android handset makers don't want to cut people out and try to force an upgrade?

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Farmer Tim]

Planned obsolescence is an Apple feature.

Ah, so that's why Apple are suing the other manufacturers: everyone else does that feature better.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[tlhIngan]

The reason for the high rate of defection is not because Android is not as good as iOS, but rather because so many people pick up free (on a two year contract) low end Android devices and those really tend to be very bad.

Google has done such a great job of showing people what a great platform Android is that people start to think that every Android handset is like a Galaxy S. Many people are still picking up no-name-brand Chinese specials running an outdated version of Android and cursing their decision everyday. Not every Android device is a Galaxy S2... and consumers need to realise that.

Two reasons for that.

First, confusing naming. Samsung Galaxy S 2. Is that possibly a Samsung Galaxy Slide? Or a Samsung Galaxy S blah? I had a look over the holidays, and all the free/penny smartphones from Samsung were all beginning with "Samsung Galaxy S" but were NOT the flagship phone. Unless you're paying attention (and don't realize that no, the phone you want is NOT on sale), you're gonna pick up some freebie Android thinking it was on sale. Or you saw an ad, but don't remember the name other than "Galaxy". Well, the first phone the guy behind the counter will show you is the free one, not the one for $200.

And the second reason is - there's a TON of android phones out there. Some were even advertising Android 2.2! Ignoring ICS, that's already one version old and on contract.

And these aren't noname chinese free specials. These are ones by Samsung, HTC, Motorola and LG. Given the cell store doesn't have anything other than those for Android phones, but rows upon rows of them... most of them are just shitty ones. And most will walk out assuming they bought the "cool" one they saw in the ad.

In the end, the worst part is there's maybe 20 Android phones all free, and the flagships at $200+ (of which there are maybe 5 or so). So a clueless consumer will assume they walked out with a good Android phone on the cheap.

Hell, I'm sure people walk in being told to buy a Galaxy Nexus and end up with some other Samsung POS Android Galaxy S something.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I have to call B.S. I bought an original droid and my wife got an iphone. After 3 months, she switched and got a droid as she liked mine more. She liked that it was faster and had a slide out keyboard. We both have droid 3's now and we both tried the iphone 4s and it truly sucked in comparison. I am upgrading to the droid 4 when it comes out and to a quad core android phone in the next few months. I am not saying android is the best but my droid phones have been awesome and have never crashed or frozen up. The new quad core ICS phones will continue to blow away iphone. Just because people are stupid enough to pay $600 for an iphone and it gives apple huge profits does not make it a good phone. Marketshare for android phones continues to grow unabated even with 4s released. Android will hit 60% marketshare this summer and if analysts predictions come to fruition, apple will shrink to 16% while windows phones surpass apple to be #2 behind android. Profits mean nothing, but marketshare is everything.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with this. I have had three Android devices:
1. A very low end Huawei Ideos (Called Pocket WiFi S by eMobile)
2. A very high-end (for the time) Sharp Android Phone (Galapagos Keitai 003SH)
3. A low-end, but newer Sony Mini

#1. was bought just to work as a router, but it was slow even for that.It would be painful to actually use the thing.
#2. Is awesome, but a little stuttery. It has all the hardware features one wants in Japan (eMoney, TV, etc.), but it was Sharp's first Android phone, and it shows sometimes.
#3. This little thing sucks spec-wise (i.e. it's "low end"), but it's new and polished. It's zippy and fun to use.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Daniel Phillips]

Fast forward last fall. The Droid was locking up constantly,

I will join the others in calling BS on you. If you're going to troll, please at least try to be a little more subtle.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[tknd]

The problem Google has is they still don't understand service. Which you would think is odd since their search engine was built on top of being the best as services search queries...

This service problem works it's way into many things. But the worst is it is blinding them from where they got their initial success. Most of Google's products since have been released for "free as in beer". They essentially tried to apply the ad model to everything without recognizing that it doesn't work in all cases.

If they want to expand successfully into other businesses, they're going to have to accept that they're going to have to alter their money making strategy for different business segments. Sorry, that's just life. Ads don't work well in all cases.

If they want to improve Android as a platform, they should first look to their app developer base and look for ways they can work with developers to make better applications. A good amount of this will be in providing an API and tools that make it easier for the developer to make a good app. There's a lot of non-sense in the android API (I've worked with it) that make it more painful to work with than anything. For example for a while they were advocating their nifty swipe left/right to switch to a different view, but did they provide this interface and make it usable for devs? No.

I'm also going to say that they need to start hiring more employees without engineering or technical centric backgrounds. That's right, everyone from designers, to marketers, to support staff. They're missing a real human component to their business and it is starting to cause them grief and isolates their technical staff from reality. When you're surrounded by people that are not technical, you begin to understand their problems and alter your strategies for implementing your own solutions. If you're only surrounded by technically aware people, your solutions are only going to fit other technically minded people. To be clear, I'm not saying they need to grow their marketing department to rival their engineering department, instead they at least need a team large enough to take on significant marketing tasks like PR and branding and they also need to get more of their engineers out in the field rather than in the Googleplex.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[thegarbz]

Do you always blame the parent OS or project when you choose hardware that comes from a third party and is loaded with an OS that is a pale resemblance to the original and significantly recoded in an effort to bend over to carriers while proving their own incompetence at coding? Or is this some kind of medical condition you have?

Until you have first hand experience running Android on a Nexus series of Google phones, all you have shown us is that you didn't like the Droid. Not surprising either since a quick google search would have told you it's a shit phone by a shit company.

Frankly you're not qualified to have an opinion on Android as you haven't used it yet.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Dr_Terminus]

So which is your statement? 100% imagination or 100% inaccurate?

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Truedat]

Android is the sum total of all the handsets out there, shitty and great alike. It's all the different versions on those phones. And it's all the skinned versions of those versions.

That's the android platform, not the latest and greatest flagship model and customers intuitively realise that only too well.

So rather than admonish the customers for making incorrect shopping decisions, wouldn't it be less arrogant if you instead put your voice behind google tightening up their ship a little more?

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Google has done such a great job of showing people what a great platform Android is that people start to think that every Android handset is like a Galaxy S.

IOW Android's success is all about marketing.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Because who needs to replace an Android phone? Planned obsolescence is an Apple feature.

Everybody who can't upgrade their phone that was already sold with an outdated OS? But Apple "only" allows two or three major OS updates - booh!

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Motorolas fault, not Android.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[randomsearch]

That wasn't a rate of defection that was quoted, it was a rate of "announced intended defection". Just because 50% of Android users might have said in a poll that they wouldn't buy another Android, doesn't mean they would. They may, for example, remember why they didn't get an iPhone in the first place - because it's much more expensive. The survey doesn't show much, other than perhaps more 'brand loyalty' amongst iPhone users. Hardly a surprise given the almost religious devotion many Mac users have, is it? (for reference, I own an iPhone, Mac Mini, and use both Linux & OS X at work).

RS

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

I have / had the complete opposite experience.

When I bought my iPhone 3G back in the days, in the beginning it was fast, responsive and overall great to use. After two years and half a major OS revision (some features of iOS 4 didn't even make it onto the 3G hardware) it felt terribly slow and locked up repeatedly. I couldn't ditch iOS fast enough. Even my generally Apple enthusiastic friends felt the same way (most are now using an iPhone 4).

My HTC Desire I got as a replacement on the other hand is still performing very well in everyday use. I was impressed of the rich feature set it offered on day one, and still use it as my every day smartphone.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[thetoadwarrior]

You're probably right but that's Google fault for giving hardware companies absolute freedom which of course results in pain for the consumer.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Sancho]

At the time, the Droid was one of the most highly regarded Android phones, and Google itself promoted it on its home page--an extreme rarity now, and a first for its time. If any phone other than a Nexus was endorsed by Google, the Droid was.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Sancho]

Why? Because my phone was crappy? I'm not sure why that's so inconceivable to you--it certainly happened, and a quick Google search shows that it happened to others. For the other guy who suggested that I should have bought a Nexus (on a crappy carrier, no less) the Nexus One also has reports of locking up.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[jbolden]

I've heard good things about the Nexus. But ultimately what end users care about is the experience as delivered. If allowing carriers choice results in a worse end user experience that's a reasonable thing to be critical of. The same way I think Microsoft deserves blame for allowing their OS to be delivered will with adware.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

A crappy phone is a crappy phone, it doesn't matter whose fault it is.

Spent days finding the one or two good android phones out there, spend top dollar to get them, and you'll probably get a good phone, or just get whatever the latest iPhone is, and you'll definitely get a good phone (as long as you hold it right).

Either way, you get a good phone, but with apple, you don't have to research it and you don't have to gamble.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[jbolden]

Excellent points. And don't forget that most Android phones have 3 names:

a) Manufacturer name
b) Advertising name
c) Carrier name

It is hard quite often to lookup these phones.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[digitalsolo]

I concur with your point, but would like to add that with a little effort put forth in research (you don't have to be a tech person to do some research) you can pick up a "half generation" old Android phone for very cheap. My HTC Evo 4G was 9 dollars with a 2 year contract, about 1.5 months ago. You can pick one up with no contract on the used market for ~150 dollars.

I realize it's not cutting edge (less CPU power mostly), but it came with 2.3 on it, and I'm currently running ICS with no issues.

The top end phones are a little better, feature wise, but not significantly enough to merit the additional expense for me. I use my phone for 95% voice/texting. Not being a "technical person" does not excuse consumers from doing some level of research before they buy. Caveat emptor.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Piata]

Your mistake was buying a Motorola product. Up until now, they've thrown a bunch of custom crap on their Android releases (namely MotoBLUR) and honestly have not produced good phones in a while (which is why they started patent litigation before Google bought them out).

I work for a mobile dealer and most of the people in my department carry around a Galaxy S2. There is one person with an iPhone 4, and a manager who has both an iPhone 4 and a Galaxy S2. When he got the Galaxy S2, he disliked it at first but now uses it as his primary phone. Your mileage may vary, but there are good Android phones out there that either match or exceed anything Apple is offering provided you're willing to spend the extra money for it.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you're terrible at phones. I picked up a Droid the week they launched and it held up fantastically (though it struggled a bit to decode in-browser flash video) right up until last summer, when I replaced it with a Droid 3. The Droid 3, in turn, has been phenomenal.

Maybe it's just the low-end users?

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[ceoyoyo]

"Google has done such a great job of showing people what a great platform Android is that people start to think that every Android handset is like a Galaxy S."

Or, a simpler hypothesis, most people take whichever of the free options looks best at the store. Which would also explain why the 3GS is the third best selling smartphone.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[ceoyoyo]

Carriers love this. They can draw people in with advertisements of a "free Galaxy S!" Once you realize you've got the crappy model it's too late because you've signed a contract and realized that the carrier won't take your calls anymore.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[nine-times]

The reason for the high rate of defection is not because Android is not as good as iOS, but rather because so many people pick up free (on a two year contract) low end Android devices and those really tend to be very bad.

Even if that's true, still, part of the reason people have been buying those low-end bad Android phones is because they're free, while iPhones have been expensive. Basically, many of those people want iPhones, but are going with the cheaper option. Those people will not be buying the high-end Android phones anyway.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Anonymous Coward]

Month 11 of my marriage to a Droid X: Droid has now de-evolved to the point that it's an Ericsson flip phone, with the pull out antenna. My spirits are at an all time low.

Month 16 of my marriage to a Droid X: Droid has sprouted an RJ-11 socket and charged me $1.25 per minute to Jamaica.

Month 22 of my marriage to a Droid X: Droid has now reverted a fancy click-machine made of brass. Final message sent from Motorola: ... .._ _._. _._ . ._.

Seriously; I bought the Droid X because it had an HDMI output; no other phone (well, that I could find at the VZW shop at the time) could play stored movies or home videos with that level of convenience, so I snagged it quick. I've used that feature a ton, but the phone is just soooo slow and unreliable. My wife has an Incredible, which is still running strong and smooth. Part of the issue with Android is you can't know how a phone is going to work a year down the line until you pick one up, unless you're buying a year behind and read others' reviews.

Some manufacturers seem to be ahead of the Android pack though - most of the people I know with HTC phones are happy with them, but most of the Motorola victims seem to have problems similar to mine and the parent poster's, regardless of phone model.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[jedidiah]

If you find your Android is sluggish, try seeing if anything has been left running. This is the downside of multi-tasking.

You may not need to go to extreme measures.

Just close the apps that are still running.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[jedidiah]

My Galaxy S has been a quite adequate replacement for the iPhone it replaced.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[jedidiah]

The same applies to Apple.

It's just the way the modern "free market" works.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[jedidiah]

Why should I care?

What am I missing by not having ICS on my device?

Be specific.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[ceoyoyo]

That's nice.

Might you be a little disappointed today if you went out and bought a Galaxy S when you were expecting to get a Galaxy Nexus?

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[toriver]

Asshole much? Basically what you are saying is that there are three Android phones like there are three iPhones: The Nexus 1, the Nexus S and the Galaxy Nexus. The rest are apparently crap but that is not the OS' fault, because they are Google partners that are supposed to be beneficiaries from the "openness" of Android? Your assholery seems to indicate that Android is just as "closed" as iOS since you only should use the official Google phones...

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[perpenso]

That wasn't a rate of defection that was quoted, it was a rate of "announced intended defection". Just because 50% of Android users might have said in a poll that they wouldn't buy another Android, doesn't mean they would. They may, for example, remember why they didn't get an iPhone in the first place - because it's much more expensive.

Then again that reason no longer exists. You can get a 3G for $0, a 4 for $100 or a 4S for $200.

The survey doesn't show much, other than perhaps more 'brand loyalty' amongst iPhone users. Hardly a surprise given the almost religious devotion many Mac users have, is it? (for reference, I own an iPhone, Mac Mini, and use both Linux & OS X at work).

"many", no, try "some". And some Android users are a bit religious too. The religious types, iPhone or Android, represent a minority. When dealing with the public at large a great disparity like the one demonstrated by this survey is a bit telling. As many other posters have pointed out Google has no control over the hardware, that is a big advantage of Apple. Apple controls the entire user experience. Android is going to share many of the same issues we see in the MS Windows world as OS and hardware come from different sources.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[perpenso]

The reason for the high rate of defection is not because Android is not as good as iOS, but rather because so many people pick up free (on a two year contract) low end Android devices and those really tend to be very bad.

And on the Apple side you can get an iPhone 3GS for free with a 2 year contract. So I think the issue is not "free" phones but that Apple provides both the OS and hardware so that they control the end user experience. Google is at a relative disadvantage in this respect.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Why should anyone care what you think. I don't. I didn't even bother to check which of my posts you bothered to tack your stupid comment on. Fuck off.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Woosh. Oh so fucking woosh.

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[Daniel Phillips]

Why? Because my phone was crappy? I'm not sure why that's so inconceivable to you--it certainly happened, and a quick Google search shows that it happened to others. For the other guy who suggested that I should have bought a Nexus (on a crappy carrier, no less) the Nexus One also has reports of locking up.

You claimed your phone was locking up. Could you please provide details?

Re:Platform loyalty: 94% iPhone 47% Android

[thegarbz]

Use what you want, but comment on what you use.

I don't go around complaining Linux et al sucks because my crappy RAID controller has a proprietary Red Hat binary blob driver which doesn't support *insert other version of Linux here*.

I didn't say you can't go out and use any other phone, I just said that unless you actually run Google's original Android, or a version of AOSP, then your complaints should be first and foremost directed at the manufacturer of the phone. Don't complain about Android in general unless you run the general version of Android.

Slow? Unresponsive? That's a complaint about a few different Android phones. Many people report the phones got much better after installing something like CyanogenMod. Kind of shows that it's not Android's fault then isn't it, and that's the problem, manufacturers tinker way too much. Some even go all out inventing their own file systems (RobustFS) that horrendously bog down the system, so how is that Android's fault?

In Apple's world the hardware and the OS can be complained about at the same time, because they are the same company, yet the parent is saying he won't ever touch an Android phone again because of a poor experience with one model of phone from one manufacturer. That's like never using the internet again because a poster left a comment on a site calling me an arsehole.

It's only a bubble if collapse is possible

[SuperKendall]

Woo, SuperKendall the Apple Zealot strikes again

It's not being a zealot to give you simple facts.

What is begin a zealot is to ignore said facts in the face of reality.

Especially when reality has bitchslapped you repeatedly and you ignored it before.

I'll give a shit about Apple's high stock price when it splits or they start actually paying out dividends to their investors.

Who cares when the stock keeps climbing? You can easily make your own "dividend" through stock sales.

Until then it's just a bubble you hope you exit before it pops.

If you really thought it was a bubble you'd sell the whole of your stock. So you are either schizophrenic or lying.

For the stock to be a bubble you have to demonstrate clearly how it could fall. The internet bubble was plain to see, absurd amounts of money invested in things not making any money and in fact simply consuming money hand over fist.

But Apple is making tons of money. They also hold LITERAL tons of money, 100 billion would weigh quite a lot in any denomination. They also have sales that you certainly could not claim have any basis to slow down much given the sales to date and any competitor on the near horizon.

So then tell us, just how does the Apple "bubble" pop when all signs point to growth in every single endeavor Apple is involved in? Even a HUGE growth of Android tablet sales (possible with the Fire) does not necessarily mean any slowdown in the iPad trajectory anytime soon.

Even if Apple's sales totally flatlined, and there was ZERO growth - even then the stock would continue to climb for some time just based on fundamentals of selling that much and the recognition of deferred revenue. Do you truly believe zero growth for Apple in tablets OR phones OR media is realistic?

After $15 billion profit in one quarter

[boddhisatva]

$100 mil is like cab fare. With the kind of money that Apple or Microsoft has, you can litigate someone out of business even if you know that ultimately you're going to lose.

Money is the final decider?

[dtmancom]

If who makes the most money is what decides what is "right," then I guess McDonald's is the best restaurant in America.

Re:Money is the final decider?

[Nerdfest]

If people keep throwing money at them, Apple will decide what is "right". They're doing it for their users already.

Re:Money is the final decider?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the market is unhappy with McD's latest results.

And "best restaurant" is obviously a hashed perspective... it might be the best franchise to invest in if you don't know how to cook worth a damn, but nobody is going to say that QUALITATIVELY it is the best restaurant.

Its strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is getting rich off chinas bid to undercut our economy.

Surprise - There are different timezones!

[Mr0bvious]

Where? It's certainly Wednesday 25th Jan 11:40am here....

$10

[alexander_686]

Actually, most of the value production is done outside of China. China basically does assembly. For an IPad that works out to about $10 of labor. So the wages in China could double and we would still not see much change in the price / profit of a IPad.

pcic.merage.uci.edu/papers/2011/Value_iPad_iPhone.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/21543174

So where are the cries from the left?

[EmagGeek]

After all, when XOM makes 4 cents/share, everyone is calling for their heads on a spit.

Please let me be the first to say

[hexadecimate]

Apple is doomed, I tell you. DOOOOOOOMED.

Sooner or later. Unless a big-ass meteor crushes the Earth, in which case we're all doomed and I'm right on a technicality.

>When all is said and done, right now Apple is rather aggressively destroying value as it tilts at windmills.
>Sure, they might get away with it in the short term or figure out a way of avoiding it in the long,
>but eventually this sort of behavior catches up with a company.

I wonder how they did it?

[Zorque]

Probably by suing the shit out of anybody who dares to make a square phone with rounded corners. Who needs innovation when you have lawyers?

There is acting and there is knowing

[SuperKendall]

That's precisely why I don't own any shares of Apple. As soon as people start acting like there's a sure thing you can be pretty sure that the price is already way too high.

I'm not ACTING at all. What I am saying, have said is that from all angles Apple's price will rise. I don't THINK it's a sure thing. There are a lot of sound reasons why the price literally HAS to go up, irresistibly pulled simply by the basic foundation of growth to date.

You are basing your thoughts on past performance. But I don't think that's a very good idea, because it can mislead you in all kinds of ways. Simply look at the marketshare they have, the growth in markets in which they are currently dominant for at least a year more, and consider just a handful of products we know will arrive this year (iPad 3, iPhone 5).

The stock is hugely undervalued. What is not sure is that it will ever not be (which would mean a huge rise in the price of the stock, equivalent to around $600-700 currently). But even if all it does is stay horribly valued it will continued to rise for some time just based on fundamentals.

Re:There is acting and there is knowing

[Krau Ming]

bingo. not to mention this little place called China that they're just tapping into now. i hear they are excited to get their hands on some iphones.

Re:There is acting and there is knowing

[hedwards]

You've got that backwards, you're the one that's arguing that past performance means that it has to keep going up. iPad 3 and iPhone 5 could very well both be duds. It's unlikely as it's going to take a bit longer before we really know what Apple is capable of without Steve, but assuming that they'll continue to dominate long enough that one can profit by timing it is folly.

Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[aussersterne]

Everyone I know has gone Mac in the last 2-3 years, and most have a story like mine. I was committed hardcore to another platform, though I had more than a few complaints. Still, no expectation of ever switching.

But the iPhone was a quantum leap in consumer technology. I was using a Palm, which was "not a bad smartphone" the month before the first iPhone announcement was made. Then iPhone was released and after 10 minutes using it I knew it was a completely different class of device. Within a few months I had realized that I couldn't keep my hands off one and bought it. Rather than let me down and gradually disappoint me, leading to rationalization and acceptance (the usual model for technology buys of all kinds), it continued to impress weeks and months into ownership and I have had no desire to switch—only to upgrade—ever since.

When iPad came out, I was absolutely sure I didn't need one, but ended up using one regularly for reasons unrelated to my own consumerist impulses. But boy did it drive those consumerist impulses... Again, within months I had bought one and it has becomemy most used and relied upon work device.

After those two experiences, Mac OS didn't seem far off, and already being in love with iPhone/iPad based on my own use of them, the one annoyance I had with them was the way that they seemed not to mesh as well with other platforms (in my case, Linux, but the same goes for Windows) as they do with Mac OS. So I resolved never to spend Mac-level money, but to buy a very old old used Mac and a Mac OS update pack, and get the OS X pack running on a hackintosh machine to "test the waters." I built a hackintosh box for $250 or so with a dual core mainboard, Firewire-800, and a RAID-1, and within a week of using it I knew I would soon migrate my life from Linux (where it had been since 1993) to Mac OS.

Within six months of going "Mac OS only," though, the difference in quality and hardware/software integration between my iPhone/iPad and my other technology devices (a hackintoshed desktop and a hackintoshed Thinkpad) was painfully obvious and I knew that I was done for—I really, really wanted access to true Mac hardware to avoid the niggling little issues and flaws of PC world hardware that seemed increasingly apparent to me.

Got a MacBook Pro 13" machine last January, finally.

It is the best computing device I have ever owned, bar none. Build quality is exceptional, fit and finish are so precise and refined that you feel as though it wasn't made by humans, but by perfect machines. Even the ThinkPads I'd always owned had little things that I'd never noticed. For example, I would never have said that the power switch was slightly crooked or that there was a little key vibration and noise in some keyswitches, or that the hinge had uneven tension throughout its range or that the display was a bit uneven in its brightness UNTIL getting and really using a MacBook Pro. The build quality is measurably better. It has raised my expectations for technology goods.

Aside from that, the ergonomics are also much better. Apple's touchpad and keyboard, though very foreign to me at first, have now enhanced my work speed considerably. For example, the key travel distance and key "give" on the chicklet keyboard has given me another 10-15 wpm in typing speed with no loss (indeed, a gain, thanks to keys not touching each other) in accuracy.

And of course beyond all of these things, there are just fewer fatal flaws. No BIOS to worry about. Exceptional battery life. No need to fuck around with drivers. No "update hell" in which the latest round of absolutely necessary updates kill some functionality in your system that you rely upon, leaving you installing/uninstalling/tweaking in a desperate haze for hours or days (problems seen both in Windows and in Linux). Just massive, massive piles of It Works Without You Having to Think About It, and It's Tough as Nails to Boot.

My parents and siblings' families have gone Mac (something I never thought would happen, an

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I run a large IT consulting firm and the bulk of our business is removing apple products and replacing with windows or android. No one has ever asked us to replace their windows machines with apple products or android phones with iphones. Everyone I know from business to personal has been ditching their iphone's and windows phones and upgrading to android phones. All the businesses have ditched their blackberry's and grabbed android as well. Apple may have great profits but their market share is not growing. That shows that new sales of iphone's are slim to non-existent. The people buying 4s phones are people upgrading from previous iphone's not new users or users downgrading from windows or android.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[sessamoid]

iPhones outsold all Android phones on Verizon last quarter combined. iOS is still gaining market share, and now they're doing it at Android's expense, not just Blackberry's.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[serviscope_minor]

It is the best computing device I have ever owned, bar none. Build quality is exceptional,

I've heard this a lot. I've been surrounded by Macs and Apple hardware for quite a while and they've certainly had their problems. Many of the problems seem to come from the fetish for thinness which tends to sacrifice build quality for thinness.

I used to work and live at high altitude (7200 feet). At the time (2006 or so) it was rare for a macbook pro to last a year before all the fans died. Not so for other laptops which had more headroom in the cooling.

A friend got a 1st get Air. Again, the cooling was inadequate and it would often down-clock itself makeing it super slow. Then the hinge blew out at the back (seemed to be a relatively common problem with the 1st gen air).

A few years ago, they started to make the magsafe power connectors too small (really, an extra 3mm would have made any difference to anyone??) and the cable would fray and break where it entered the magnetic block.

Another friend has a MacBook which had one of those suicidal motherboards (now replaced). But, the OS has bitrotted itself to death. Really?? Bitrot?? I've had XP installs last over twice as long.

I happened to wind up with a 3 or 4 year old 30" cinema display at work for a while. It seemed to suffer from some kind ob burn in (?? never investigated fully). Anyway, the intensity was very uneven, and the striping seemed to match the size of window borders and title bars.

And I heard they're great for OSS software development too. Except that the package managers for open source are terrible. Fink and macports seem to regularly need wiping and reinstalling, which is usually an overnight job due to the need to compile everything from scratch.

Between the OSS software woes and the excessive bitrot, I've spent far more time futzing with that computer than my Arch laptop. It certainly did not "just work".

Sure, I also know people who have had flawles experiences. But they're not without their problems, and they often have too many compromises to get a truly outstanding build quality.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any product line has problems.

I would rather deal with problems with Apple products than any other firm. They are as good as or better than Gateway Computer in the mid 90's...

HP, Dell, Sony and all the other consumer electronics manufacturers make it damn near impossible for people like myself who live in a rural area to return defective products for replacements.

Macports is quite good, not sure why you are complaining about an overnight install - I have had to go through that one time so far and it wasn't that big of a deal. I am waiting for Macports to resolve the issues with the new Mac OSX before I upgrade, but other than that I am happy with Macports.

I guess the haters will hate. I don't have time to screw with things that don't work, that leads to far too many wasted billable hours.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[Anonymous Coward]

My iPad 2 that cost $500 came with a crooked screen and it fucking sucks. Apple says its the sellers problem and the seller says its apples problem (I am not among the "chosen" who have an Apple store nearby to perform my weekly worship). I hate it.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[intheshelter]

Same story here. I know it's fashionable to hate Apple and dismiss Apple owners as "fanbois" but it just shows the nerds are not immune to herd mentality and wanting to appear cool.

Bought a PowerMac in 2004 and loved it so much I began to convert my family to Macs when they bought a new machine. My family computer support time has dropped to maybe 2 hours a year now and everyone is very happy with their machines and have expanded into iPads and iPhones, etc. What the haters seem to be unable to understand is that satisfied customers are not satisfied because of marketing, when you spend good money on these products you will not be satisfied with a marketing slogan. Starting with that original Mac I have been so happy that I've recommended them to everyone. How many products have you bought in your life that pleased you so much that you became an independent sales team for the company? That is why Apple is doing well, they are making great products that people love, and satisfied customers mean repeat business and referrals, and that means record quarters like we've just seen. Apple has earned their success.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[ceoyoyo]

I was a Windows user until Linux showed up, when I used both for a while. When I started my PhD the lab used Macs (with OS 9). OS 9 was a pain. Coding for it was a bigger pain. Then we started playing with the new OS X. It was kind of interesting (a UNIX shell? Cool.) but also a pain because it was slow and crashed all the time. Then 10.1 came along and I was hooked.

My father is the kind of guy who tends to buy the cheapest thing that does what he needs it to. At one point he kept buying cheap MP3 players. He was always complaining about them and couldn't find one he was happy with. He couldn't find one that didn't frustrate him somehow. For his birthday one year I gave him an iPod Mini. I think he still uses it.

He has also bought cheap Dell notebooks since Dell started making them. When the last one died he decided to buy a Macbook Pro. He loves it. He also had a free dumb phone from 7-11. For Christmas he got a new Nokia. Didn't like it. So he bought an iPhone 3GS off eBay. Very happy.

Sometimes quality is worth paying for. For something I use as much as computing devices, it's definitely worth it.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally relate to the part of raising my expectations. When the iPad came out, I was dismissing it as a big weird iPhone. Today, I curse at my laptop because it can't hold charge for more than 3 hours, and the fact I can't use it in bed because it will toast my lap (isn't there where a laptop is supposed to go?)

Another thing, I hear people saying how pad are niche market, and that PCs are the bigger market. But I would not be surprised if pads end up making PCs the niche market (servers, office workstations). Reminds me when people first started buying cell phones, most people will have their land line. Now people can't get rid of their land line fast enough.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[Anonymous Coward]

have fun when they decide you can't do something you want to do. it's only a matter of time before they start requiring a license to unlock a compiler or force you into using a standard that prevents piracy while destroying any and all third party media options. Apple is a terrible company with less morals than a politician.

Re:Stuff that people want to buy. KEY PHRASE.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed about MacPorts and OSS web dev. It took me a while to figure out that if the deployment target is Linux, it made absolutely no sense to futz around with an entirely different config setup on a OS X. So instead, just run your target Linux distro in a VM with some deployment scripts.

Same advice applies for Windows too, where a lot of OSS stuff is barely supported if at all.

Foxconn suicide is significant

[walterbyrd]

You have to consider Chinese mentality, and the way the suicides happened. Those workers were making a statement.

And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.

I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.

We would all like to think we are better than the 19th century slavers, but are we? I'm sure the old slavers would say there was nothing practical to do about the situation.

Re:Foxconn suicide is significant

[BasilBrush]

I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.

That's irrational. It's vastly overstating the problems at Foxconn and understating the issue of the 19th century slave trade.

Those slaves were either forcibly removed from their home country, or were descendants of the same. They were forced to work for their owner. They had no choice of leaving.

Foxconn employees chose to work there. They are all paid. They are free to leave.

And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.

Not really. I've seen plenty of footage of India sweat shops, where lots of other products exported to the west are made. The conditions at Foxconn are vastly more pleasant.

Worker conditions in western countries improved over many decades. It's idiotic to imagine that other countries will do it overnight. The influence of western countries outsourcing their manufacturing to those countries is making things improve faster than they otherwise would. That's a good thing.

Of course if your only thought is how to bash Apple, then your mind will be too narrow to see any of this.

Re:Foxconn suicide is significant

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

You have to consider Chinese mentality, and the way the suicides happened. Those workers were making a statement.

And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.

I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.

We would all like to think we are better than the 19th century slavers, but are we? I'm sure the old slavers would say there was nothing practical to do about the situation.

So why are there so few suicides at Foxconn even at the hight of the suicide wave? Why was there almost none before and after that hyped "mass of suicides"?

Re:Foxconn suicide is significant

[ceoyoyo]

"I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave."

You're pretty fuzzy on what exactly slaves are, aren't you? Here's the key: a slave is property. Owned. You can do with it (yes, I chose that pronoun on purpose) what you like.

Chinese workers (not just at Foxconn) may work in poor conditions compared to what we've come to expect, but they are paid and are free to leave. They can't be hanged for refusing to work.

Apple at least monitors working conditions at their contractors. Do you think the company that imported that t-shirt you're wearing does the same?

Third world working conditions are a concern, absolutely, but not an Apple specific problem, and nothing like slavery in the 19th century (in the US) or earlier (the rest of the western world).

Good products, good marketing & evilness?

[walterbyrd]

That would be my guess. Apple does a lot of things right. I would feel a lot better about Apple, if it were not for their constant IP scams.

It keeps me from buying Apple products. But, that's just me.

Re:Good products, good marketing & evilness?

[BasilBrush]

With the exception of satanist supplies and heavy metal, people don't buy because the supplier is evil. So let's drop that bit of over-enthusiasm on your part.

Good products and good marketing. Yes, those are the reasons. It's not because there are a group of fanboys that will buy anything Apple.

remember Sculley?

[Onymous Coward]

http://www.cultofmac.com/63295/john-sculley-on-steve-jobs-the-full-interview-transcript/

astroturf

[Anonymous Coward]

You have all been astroturfed by foxconn and apple.

Good luck with that

Apple has greater market share too

[SuperKendall]

Android is certainly the bargain option. Apple makes more money than Microsoft in the PC market, so you could say they are "winning". But that would neglect the fact that Microsoft has over 90% market share.

The number of iOS devices (iPhone and iPod Touch) sold last quarter exceeded the number of Android units sold.

On Verizon alone 55% of smartphones sold were iPhones

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[Daniel Phillips]

The number of iOS devices (iPhone and iPod Touch) sold last quarter exceeded the number of Android units

Just barely, and only if you believe that overtly biased analyst's estimate. And why would you count the Touch as a phone? Apples to apples please :-)

More to the point, there is no guarantee of a repeat next quarter, far from it.

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the quarted in which Apple released the phone that their fans had been waiting for for a year...

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[thetoadwarrior]

That's true if you're comparing phones. Though I'm sure Apple is happy to sell ipod touches too as it gets you buying more stuff from their shop. Which of course makes the iOS market more attractive and can keep developers on their side and away from Android.

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[BasilBrush]

More to the point, there is no guarantee of a repeat next quarter, far from it.

Nothing's guaranteed. But look at the trend on Neilson's market share estimates.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/smartphone-recent.png

I think I can guess why this is happening. People on contracts generally get to change their phone every couple of years. Increasingly people are replacing a smartphone with another, rather than buying their first smartphone. And so satisfaction with their existing smartphone plays a big part of the decision. And that's bad news for everyone but Apple.

http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/01/09/iphone-satisfaction-at-75-closest-competitor-at-47/

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[CptNerd]

He didn't say "phones" he said "iOS devices" which the iPod an iPad both certainly are. If you want the "apples to apples" you need to count everything that uses Android as an "Android device".

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[xclr8r]

I've seen some International students (U.S. here) put a module into a touch and do some software change and the touch becomes a phone. Not nearly as fast for download speeds but if what you want is already on the phone it saves a couple hundred bucks.

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[maccodemonkey]

"Just barely, and only if you believe that overtly biased analyst's estimate. And why would you count the Touch as a phone? Apples to apples please :-)"

Because people are counting for deciding which platform to deploy apps onto. Do iPod Touches run the same apps as the iPhone? If yes, it counts.

The Android devices that are not phones were also counted, so in that respect this is still an apple to apple comparison.

Re:Apple has greater market share too

[Daniel Phillips]

He didn't say "phones" he said "iOS devices" which the iPod an iPad both certainly are.

As we both know, iOS is not an operating system, and neither is Android. Both are just skins for an operating system. So if you insist on lumping together phones with non-phones, which is essentially the entire share that BSD has these days, it would only be fair to consider the entire share that Linux has. Which would include DSL routers among other things. Then where do you suppose iOS/BSD sits? Right.

Hey, you Apple fans really should stop trying to compare music players to phones. It makes you sound like... cultists.

Rhetorical question:

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you call it when everyone thinks different?

The Truth hurts those that hate it

[SuperKendall]

I am not an "Apple Fan".

I am a pragmatic guy. I buy and use what what works. I have an iPhone because I can make use of it (and make money from it), my wife has an ultra-cheap phone because she doesn't need or want anything advanced or expensive.

I don't upgrade every round of new Apple products, I still have an iPhone 4 and an aging laptop. I buy strictly what is needed, not what is fashionable.

I also do not let emotion cloud my judgement when thinking of what will happen in the future. Over the years this has served me extremely well as I have been able to shift my carrier around very early in market transitions; first to Java and then to iOS. Someday it will be to something else I am sure.

So you can either listen to my rational and carefully considered opinions to help decide how the future will go, or you can continue to let your cloud of irrational hatred for Apple eat away at your judgement and your health. Frankly, I tend to let people live in their own cloud of hate if that is what they really want, my main hope is that my writing serves to prevent other people from fallowing you on your dark and bitter path.

Re:The Truth hurts those that hate it

[narcc]

Clearly I was wrong. You're no Apple fan.

You're a hard-core Apple zealot!

Re:The Truth hurts those that hate it

[SuperKendall]

Clearly is as clearly does. My actions speak louder than your "words".

Re:The Truth hurts those that hate it

[narcc]

Feeling a bit touchy today, are you?

You mad, bro?

(LOL at "actions")

Re:The Truth hurts those that hate it

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're obviously a retarded fuck.

There are not "way more apps"

[SuperKendall]

iOS has 450k apps; I couldn't find a recent count but at this point it should be about the same.

However, iOS also has 170k iPad apps...

Unware

[SuperKendall]

First of all, if Apple does any R&D

Webkit?

LLVM?

Obviously doing material based R&D on materials for cases and such...

It's a little odd how even the most casual, and certainly any technical user, could be unaware of the R&D Apple does.

Hell just with LLVM alone they are probably even ahead of Microsoft in modern compiler research!

Re:Unware

[shutdown -p now]

Hell just with LLVM alone they are probably even ahead of Microsoft in modern compiler research!

Last I checked, clang wasn't anywhere near close either g++ or VC++ when it came to optimizing code - so, no.

LLVM is certainly a very neat thing, and it will do wonders for anyone who needs to write his own compiler. But there's no magical pixie dust there, and it doesn't really do anything that wasn't done before. It just happens to have all those goodies gathered in a single place, available under a very permissive license, and maintained by a company with huge pockets.

Re:Unware

[SuperKendall]

Last I checked, clang wasn't anywhere near close either g++ or VC++ when it came to optimizing code - so, no.

Yes but the fundamental base is more modern and easier to build new ideas atop of. Compilers are not ALL about optimization.

LLVM is certainly a very neat thing, and it will do wonders for anyone who needs to write his own compiler. But there's no magical pixie dust there, and it doesn't really do anything that wasn't done before. It just happens to have all those goodies gathered in a single place, available under a very permissive license, and maintained by a company with huge pockets.

That all most advances are in CS. But it's more than most are doing currently. It certainly is something new and more interesting than ever more esoteric compiler optimizations for gcc...

And it still shows what I said is true and the OP is wrong, that Apple is doing R&D - even out in the open.

Re:Unware

[shutdown -p now]

What's "R" about LLVM? i.e. what really new things, or at least workable production-quality implementations of older concepts that no-one pulled of before, did it bring to the table?

Re:Unware

[Anonymous Coward]

The clang static analyzer is the single best development tool I have ever used, hands down. It's incredible what it can do, and Apple has further leveraged it to come up with ARC — which is Garbage Collection Done Right (at compile time).

Re:Unware

[Anonymous Coward]

What's "R" about LLVM? i.e. what really new things, or at least workable production-quality implementations of older concepts that no-one pulled of before, did it bring to the table?

"R and D" really is "R or D" - MBAs don't know about logic, big surprise

Re:Unware

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hell just with LLVM alone they are probably even ahead of Microsoft in modern compiler research!"

Yeah, cos it's not like Microsoft have continued to develop the .NET framework, adding in things like LINQ, the DLR and so forth, whilst also pursuing new things like F#, Code Contracts or continuing to improve their age old offerings like their C++ compiler all of which have bearing on compiler R&D. Microsoft have been doing, and continue to do it across more platforms, under more circumstances, supporting more types of languages, for solving more types of solutions, for much longer.

SuperKendall, this is why so many people on Slashdot think you're a marketing puppet, a) because you post such nonsensical and blatantly false stuff, and b) because you mysteriously get modded up for it despite it's blatantly incorrect nature.

For what it's worth, I personally don't actually think you are a marketing puppet though, I think you're as deluded as you actually believe you are, and that there are similarly enough Apple fanboys as stupid as you to have a little circle jerk over the nonsense you post and then mod it up.

Obviously Apple is doing well, this news demonstrates that pretty clearly, so why do you feel the need to pretend Apple and it's products are even more magical than they already are in other areas? Isn't the fact they've had the most profitable quarter for a tech company enough to relieve your blatant insecurities over anything Apple related? I suppose it wont be long now until you start telling us Apple is better than CERN at physics, better at promoting world peace than Ghandi, and more likely to find a cure for AIDs than the world's combined medical research professionals too right?

Seriously get a grip, stick to the facts, and people other than your army of fanboy followers might listen, and then your opinions might actually mean something. Until then all you're doing is preaching to the converted which is a clear exercise in pointlessness, but hey, if that's what floats your boat I guess.

Re:Unware

[ceoyoyo]

Haven't checked the optimization, but Clang compiles a hell of a lot faster than gcc. Not just a little bit faster, a hell of a lot faster.

Re:Unware

[SiChemist]

Webkit? Oh, you mean the KHTML code base they took over and polished (in conjunction with other companies such as Google.)

Re:Unware

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, clang wasn't anywhere near close either g++ or VC++ when it came to optimizing code - so, no.

Last I checked it was beating GCC in quite a few places.

Apple knows something you do not

[SuperKendall]

Apple is sitting on a giant pile of cash.

They probably have a very good reason for doing so.

So do you want to invest in a company with a lot of foresight or what?

And even if the market totally craters AAPL cannot go much below the cash value... around $82. A loss (if you were forced to sell then), but only 1/4 current value.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[SadButTrue]

Me?!? No, I couldn't care less how much cash Apple sits on. The investment community however believes strongly in CAPM. What Apple is doing is equivalent to an individual putting cash under the mattress. From their point of view there are only two options, a) give it back to investors (dividends) b) invest in something that will improve returns. Holding cash or cash equivalent of this scale, from their point of view, is hurting their investors.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[Anonymous Coward]

And the investment community is stupid. Almost every "analyst" has no clue about apples business. The stock price
is so ridiculously undervalued by any measure other that stupidity. But apple doesn't care. They know the cash will let
them handle things as they come (like locking up critical components and dominating any supply chain that gives
them huge advantages over competitors rather than buying some completely incongruous companies just because they
can and then just f'in everything up (which seems to be the general business plan of others). Luckily the management
and board are smart enough to actually run the company properly rather than try to placate morons on wall street.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[aristotle-dude]

Me?!? No, I couldn't care less how much cash Apple sits on. The investment community however believes strongly in CAPM. What Apple is doing is equivalent to an individual putting cash under the mattress. From their point of view there are only two options, a) give it back to investors (dividends) b) invest in something that will improve returns. Holding cash or cash equivalent of this scale, from their point of view, is hurting their investors.

The investment community are a bunch of idiots. They were asleep at the wheel when the meltdown happened. MSFT is a company that pays dividends but their stock price has been flat for over 5 years give or take a few bucks. Dividends are a sign that the company is trying to make their stock look more attractive to "investors" because they are no longer a "growth" company.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[SuperKendall]

I will join in the chorus noting that you are complaining that a bunch of ultra-short-sighted idiots are disagreeing with Apple and wondering what the problem is.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[toruonu]

You are a trickle late, that $82 was before this quarter results came in. They now have 96.7 billion USD and about 960M shares outstanding meaning ca 100$ / share is cash. So the price cannot drop below that really. :) And not making a separate post, but Apple now has more cash than the 448 of S&P 500, not 400 :P

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[gtall]

"a) give it back to investors (dividends)" Why? If the company were not growing and their share price not rising substantially, I could see why they'd be remiss in not giving dividends. In the current climate, though, and especially when a company can go from saint to dog in a year, their cash hoard makes a lot of sense.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[SadButTrue]

I am not complaining about anything. As I said above, I couldn't care less. I don't own shares of Apple at this time and even if I did, I doubt I would care. I am just telling you what I have heard. No need to shoot the messenger :)

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[blueg3]

It also lets them quickly get in to new areas of business. For example, they decide they need some kind of "cloud service thing". Fine, except they'll need a few new massive data centers. No problem, throw a few billion at it and now you have data centers!

Solving problems quickly is easily done if you have a lot of cash on hand and results in you getting a product to market fast. Getting things to market quickly is a pretty important bit of Apple's business.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[w_dragon]

Microsoft was sitting on a huge pile of cash for a very long time in the late 90s, early 2000s. Sometimes companies have vision, and sometimes they just have so much money that they actually don't know what to do with all of it.

Re:Apple knows something you do not

[coinreturn]

I am not complaining about anything. As I said above, I couldn't care less. I don't own shares of Apple at this time and even if I did, I doubt I would care. I am just telling you what I have heard. No need to shoot the messenger :)

Well, if you owned Apple shares you probably WOULD care. The stock is up over 6% today.

Windfall Profits

[jmottram08]

So where are the people clamoring for a windfall profits tax on Apple?

Or do we just call for those against companies that we dont like (energy)?

Problem with sizes

[SuperKendall]

The trouble with Apple Haters is they have no inkling of size.

Yeah and the number of chinese that can afford an iphone are about 1/3 the US. major market.

Apple has only a small percentage of the overall US market currently.

So YOUR OWN ESTIMATE yields a potential 10x (or greater) profit increase for Apple. Just from China.

Man, don't you Apple haters have rather sore Petards from constantly being hoisted upon them?

I'll grant you the last response sine Apple Haters have to post and post showing off further ignorance. I'll leave it to the reader to discern what terrible misjudgment of reality the poster makes next!

Playing Devil's advocate here...

[Shivetya]

but to which country does a multinational corporation show fealty/loyalty too?

Should companies be required to locally produce items for each market? Yes I understand that Apple is based in the United States; so am I; but does that require them to make their products there?

The middle class has chosen, they chose China for their goods. Don't tell me we didn't choose. We had a choice every single day we went to the store for electronics and we had every choice when we bought our cars.

We bought the product of other people. We did it to save a buck, we did it because we perceived better quality, we did because they made something we wanted. We had industries here that made many of these items. However many priced themselves out of the market, a market we defined by who we purchased our items from.

So who do we blame? Well just look in the mirror.

It just proves that Apple products are overpriced

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, a company needs to make a profit. But Apple margins are insane. And, all of you Apple fanboys just line up to be gouged. Tsk, tsk.

Beware handset myopia

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of iOS devices (iPhone and iPod Touch) sold last quarter exceeded the number of Android units

Just barely, and only if you believe that overtly biased analyst's estimate. And why would you count the Touch as a phone? Apples to apples please :-)

The question is, why do you care about whether iOS or Android is "winning?"

If you're Verizon or Sprint, or HTC or Sony Ericsson, then you might just care about phones. You want to know which devices are drawing customers into your stores, so things like the iPod Touch and wifi-only iPad are irrelevant to you. All you want to know is how many handsets and 3G tablets get activated on your network.

On the other hand, if you're a developer, or just an armchair tech enthusiast, you want to know which platform is more successful. Which ecosystem has a larger market for apps, which OS do people prefer to interact with, which vendor holds sway over more eyeballs, which vendor has more influence when doing deals with content providers and such. I think most Slashdot readers fall into this category.

And to those of us who are armchair-referreeing the platform race, handheld and tablet sales are extremely relevant. A platform that is successful on a variety of devices has a definite advantage in the marketplace. It will attract more content providers, more app developers, and more accessory makers. This in turn reinforces the strength of the platform, which encourages consumers to buy more devices.

Re:Beware handset myopia

[Daniel Phillips]

The question is, why do you care about whether iOS or Android is "winning?"

Easy. Because Apple is unabashedly evil and proud of it, whereas Google still has a few shreds of decency left.

85 million iCloud users?

[Anonymous Coward]

in 3 months? That's a far more impressive number than $46 billion dollars.

Profits are good, right?

[ArmchairGeneral]

So when can we expect a price cut on the iPhone? Or maybe the next model will be cheaper?

Magic? Yeah...

[TihSon]

Slavery. That shit is just the magic pixie dust of corporate profits, eh? Why didn't we think of using slaves hundred of years ago?

Market Share and Winning

[painandgreed]

The only reason a company wants market share is so you can leverage it to get the profits by getting people to buy your stuff and developers to make programs for it. So Apple is definately winning over Microsoft and the other cell phone makers. With Linux, it's a bit different because supposedly if everybody was using OS software, there wouldn't have to be any profits to be considered a win as getting people to use OS software is the goal, not profits. So, right now, Apple is getting the profits in the phone business while Linux is getting the market share and can use it for getting more OS programs and support. In effect, both Apple and Linux are currently winning because they are after different things.

it needs Android support

[DrYak]

Someone should restart the "Android environment as a standard Linux application" effort started before by Cannonical.

WebOS would be the perfect target:
- it's a (somewhat) fuller Linux platform than Android (webOS : Standard Linux stack with a proprietary GUI. Android: Linux kernel+special userland).
So geek could love it.
- it has the best GUI for smartphone ever .
So users could love it.
- it has support for HTML+Javascript based apps
So developpers could love it.

The only thing it lacks is a market share.
- Now if it could run also standard Android applications (with a android execution envrionment) and thus leverage the thousands of existing apps
- And if it gets open sourced (as promised)
That could help it see more widespread usage.

Mmmm...NOT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... when Steve came back in 1996 and introduced the reworked Apple (with cleaning of the board and going back to the strongpoints) he also announced a deal with Microsoft where MS injected money for non-voting shares (that MSFT made use of 5 or so years later with hefty profit) and promised to bring office etc to Apple's platform for N years. THAT did save Apple to some extent as Steve's said that they were days away from bankruptcy.

That was part of a deal to end lawsuits surrounding QuickTime and Video for Windows, as well as a host of other IP-related suits. It was $155 million, and it could only be called a "settlement", not an investment/cash infusion.

iPod Touches count because...

[multimediavt]

The number of iOS devices (iPhone and iPod Touch) sold last quarter exceeded the number of Android units

Just barely, and only if you believe that overtly biased analyst's estimate. And why would you count the Touch as a phone? Apples to apples please :-)

More to the point, there is no guarantee of a repeat next quarter, far from it.

iPod Touches count because they run iOS, not that they are smartphones. So, Apples are apples in this case. Now, if we want count ALL Android device sales vs. all iOS device sales we're talking a level, unbiased playing field.

You all make me laugh...

[Bentov]

I know that slashdot is the land of extremists, but why can't someone just like things that work? I've ran Windows(multiple variants), Linux(multiple distros), and now Mac os. I'm sticking with Mac, it works; and is as simple or as technical as I want it to be. Most of all, I just like things that just work. It's the reason why most of my guns are glocks, and most of my cars are Hondas.

Not from what I have seen

[SuperKendall]

And reverse splits happen when a stock is already dropping.

I have one stock (that shall remain nameless) that was cycling around a bit, but generally rising over a few months...

They did a reverse 10-1 split, and BAM the stock tanked. It has not recovered since.

I honestly thing there IS causation, that any reverse split will lead to a decline the stock that is not fully related to how the company is doing.

Re:Not from what I have seen

[V-similitude]

The question is why did they reverse split in the first place? It's pretty rare and carries a stigma (which could be the causation, yes), so I imagine there must have been a very good reason for it.