PDA

View Full Version : Apple Q1 2007 Financial Results Webcast




MacRumors
Jan 15, 2007, 03:26 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple will be broadcasting (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq107/) their Q1 2007 Financial Results on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 2pm PST (5pm EST). Apple's 1Q 2007 ran from October to December 2006, and there are some indications that Apple's iPod and MacBook products did extremely well, with Apple's products reigning the bestseller lists at Amazon.com (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/20061227171144.shtml) and the iTunes store getting overwhelmed (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/12/20061228134510.shtml) on Christmas Day.

Financial results and recent sales performance will be disclosed, and questions from the call attendees will be taken (and perhaps answered).



Grimace
Jan 15, 2007, 03:27 PM
another stock boost to AAPL! :D

applelabs
Jan 15, 2007, 03:29 PM
Financial results and recent sales performance will be disclosed, and questions from the call attendees will be taken (and perhaps answered).
"We can't talk about future products"
There, I answered all the questions.

Rocketman
Jan 15, 2007, 03:32 PM
"We can't talk about future products"
There, I answered all the questions.

So let's come up with some answerable questions.

kresh
Jan 15, 2007, 03:45 PM
My burning questions:

1) Who decided on the name change of Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc. ?

2) Was this decision voted by the board ?

3) Why was this decision not brought before the shareholders for a vote ?

edit: I think this is material and that all shareholders should have voted on an issue of this importance. What if the board (or Steve) decided to name the company something completely different?

Despite what Steve thinks, and the way he acts, this is a public company - no longer his own private kingdom being run from his garage!

freeny
Jan 15, 2007, 03:50 PM
another stock boost to AAPL! :D

They have historically fell upon good quarterly news.

Daveway
Jan 15, 2007, 03:54 PM
My burning questions:

1) Who decided on the name change of Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc. ?

2) Was this decision voted by the board ?

3) Why was this decision not brought before the shareholders for a vote ?


Because its Apple and they can do whatever the hell they want. :rolleyes:
PS: I'm a stockholder

kresh
Jan 15, 2007, 03:58 PM
Because its Apple and they can do whatever the hell they want. :rolleyes:
PS: I'm a stockholder

I am a stockholder as well and I damn sure did not get a letter from the board asking for my proxy to gain my votes!

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2007, 04:10 PM
I am a stockholder as well and I damn sure did not get a letter from the board asking for my proxy to gain my votes!

You didn't get to vote on Steve's stock options, either.

Common stock holders get very little say in the running of corporations, unless they own enough stock to become members of the board. Then they get to give themselves stock options. (Yes, the system is rigged.)

As a stockholder you can always attend the annual meeting and complain. I'm sure the board will thank you for your interest.

kresh
Jan 15, 2007, 04:15 PM
You didn't get to vote on Steve's stock options, either.

Common stock holders get very little say in the running of corporations, unless they own enough stock to become members of the board. Then they get to give themselves stock options. (Yes, the system is rigged.)

As a stockholder you can always attend the annual meeting and complain. I'm sure the board will thank you for your interest.

I have no illusions that my small voting block matters, not even a little.

It just irks me to death. I get proxy requests all the time from companies I own stock in. Except from Apple.

A small part of me hopes that Steve gets a huge slap from the government over the backdating scandal, maybe even a little personal, Martha Stewart like, treatment at Club Fed!

mclosers
Jan 15, 2007, 04:19 PM
I am also a stock holder... and how a public company works is
the day to day operations of the company is not done by the shareholders!

Personally Steve Jobs can run the company however he wants as long as he is increasing stockholder value, which I think he is doing at an enormous pace.

People that make the comments made above, are the same ones who make the government run so inefficiently, asking 5000000 people if you can make simple decisions. If he makes a decision that materially effects the value of your stock, you can whine about it.

kresh
Jan 15, 2007, 04:22 PM
I am also a stock holder... and how a public company works is
the day to day operations of the company is not done by the shareholders!

Personally Steve Jobs can run the company however he wants as long as he is increasing stockholder value, which I think he is doing at an enormous pace.

People that make the comments made above, are the same ones who make the government run so inefficiently, asking 5000000 people if you can make simple decisions. If he makes a decision that materially effects the value of your stock, you can whine about it.

Changing the name of the company is obviously not a common day to day decision, and you know it.

Changing the company name has the potential to materially affect the value of the stock.

bmoseley07
Jan 15, 2007, 04:25 PM
I have no illusions that my small voting block matters, not even a little.

It just irks me to death. I get proxy requests all the time from companies I own stock in. Except from Apple.

A small part of me hopes that Steve gets a huge slap from the government over the backdating scandal, maybe even a little personal, Martha Stewart like, treatment at Club Fed!

That'll do wonders for your stock. Good thinking.

Changing the name of the company is obviously not a common day to day decision, and you know it.

Changing the company name has the potential to materially affect the value of the stock.

And so would Jobs getting locked up for a bit.

kresh
Jan 15, 2007, 04:26 PM
And so would Jobs getting locked up for a bit.

I said it was a small part :eek:

WildCowboy
Jan 15, 2007, 04:29 PM
Changing the company name has the potential to materially affect the value of the stock.

So does whether or not they release new Mac Pros at next week...would you like to vote on that, too?

Apple structured the name change such that they merged with a wholly-owned subsidiary called Apple, Inc. Avoiding the costs of having to send out proxies to all shareholders is a good thing in my opinion for something as minor as this. They haven't been a "computer" company for over five years now...it's time the name reflected reality.

bmoseley07
Jan 15, 2007, 04:31 PM
I said it was a small part :eek:

:D Alright.

bmoseley07
Jan 15, 2007, 04:35 PM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Kresh on this one.

Changing a company's name, whether it's just taking a word out or not, is not an everyday operation and could effect the stock adversely.

Although, I can see where SJ wouldn't want to do this, with his secrecy policy n all.

inkswamp
Jan 15, 2007, 04:38 PM
Because its Apple and they can do whatever the hell they want. :rolleyes:
PS: I'm a stockholder

Given that people read way too much into anything Apple and/or Steve Jobs says or does, I would say making the name change public by revealing it to shareholders would have sent all kinds of weird messages and have been interpreted in all sorts of loony ways that could have negatively affected Apple's stock. Imagine what would have happened if word had leaked to all the jittery Chicken Littles in the tech press: "OH MY GOD! They're dropping 'computer' from their name! The Mac is going to be discontinued! Why else would they have kept it quiet?! It's the end of the world!!!"

Instead, Jobs was savvy enough to know how to do it right, make it public and explain it while he has everyone's attention so it's clear that the Mac is going to be around. Notice how he made comments about how some great things are coming for the Mac at the beginning of the keynote and emphasized that even through they aren't talking about the Mac, it's still important? I would think shareholders would be pleased with how carefully it was handled.

You know, even with that, I've already read some crazy-ass speculation about the Mac disappearing. Imagine what would have been happening if the word had gotten out without Jobs giving his explanation. It would be ridiculous.

kresh
Jan 15, 2007, 04:39 PM
deleted by poster.

abrooks
Jan 15, 2007, 04:46 PM
I don't know what he learned while running around India shaving his head, but he clearly is a little shaky in the morals department, and has been from the very beginning: "According to Atari Founder Nolan Bushnell, Atari had offered $100 for each chip that was reduced in the machine. Jobs had little interest or knowledge in circuit board design and made a deal with Wozniak to split the bonus evenly between them if Wozniak could minimize the number of chips. Much to the amazement of Atari, Wozniak reduced the number of chips by 50, a design so tight that it was impossible to reproduce on an assembly line. At the time, Jobs told Wozniak that Atari had only given them $700 (instead of the actual $5000) and that Wozniak's share was thus $350."

Yeah it's old news, but it shows how he thinks. He clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants as if it's his private company.

Damn, wish I'd thought of that scheme :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter how you look at it, Steve Jobs has done amazing things for Apple's stock, and this company name change is unlikely to be thought up Jobs sitting in bed one night reading iWoz, who suddenly jumps up and shouts, 'REMOVE COMPUTER!', [is then seen running down street in Disney PJs]. The decision was most likely an advisor to Steve, or even more likely a board decision which has a lot more control than the measly stock holders, of which I am one.

StuPidQPid
Jan 15, 2007, 04:48 PM
People that make the comments made above, are the same ones who make the government run so inefficiently, asking 5000000 people if you can make simple decisions.

Last time I looked that was called a Democracy.

A few people making decisions for 5000000 without asking ... Last time I looked that was called a Dictatorship.

sososowhat
Jan 15, 2007, 04:56 PM
Changing the name of the company is obviously not a common day to day decision, and you know it.

Changing the company name has the potential to materially affect the value of the stock.

Changing the name reflects a change of direction that's taken place since the iPod first came out. The bigger shift here is that "mac"world was all about iPhone. It's not practical that shareholders vote in advance on whether to redirect the company toward or away from phones or computers. The good news is that the stock is very liquid - you can sell tomorow if you want, as it happens for a very good price. When we invest in a stock like Apple's we're saying that we trust management & the Board to act in our interest.

DTphonehome
Jan 15, 2007, 05:16 PM
Given that people read way too much into anything Apple and/or Steve Jobs says or does, I would say making the name change public by revealing it to shareholders would have sent all kinds of weird messages and have been interpreted in all sorts of loony ways that could have negatively affected Apple's stock. Imagine what would have happened if word had leaked to all the jittery Chicken Littles in the tech press: "OH MY GOD! They're dropping 'computer' from their name! The Mac is going to be discontinued! Why else would they have kept it quiet?! It's the end of the world!!!"

Instead, Jobs was savvy enough to know how to do it right, make it public and explain it while he has everyone's attention so it's clear that the Mac is going to be around. Notice how he made comments about how some great things are coming for the Mac at the beginning of the keynote and emphasized that even through they aren't talking about the Mac, it's still important? I would think shareholders would be pleased with how carefully it was handled.

You know, even with that, I've already read some crazy-ass speculation about the Mac disappearing. Imagine what would have been happening if the word had gotten out without Jobs giving his explanation. It would be ridiculous.

I agree completely. The panic would have been palpable if this had leaked out. It's clear Apple is moving on from its core business of computers, so a name change made perfect sense. That it was done as Apple introduced a major new noncomputer product (the iPhone) made it apparent that this was not due to a failing computer business, but due to the success of their consumer electronics ventures.

And yeah, I'm sure that earnings will give a nice boost to AAPL. Split anyone?

EDIT: w00t! 500 posts!

IJ Reilly
Jan 15, 2007, 05:21 PM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Kresh on this one.

Changing a company's name, whether it's just taking a word out or not, is not an everyday operation and could effect the stock adversely.

Although, I can see where SJ wouldn't want to do this, with his secrecy policy n all.

A lot of things could effect the stock adversely, but that doesn't mean you get to vote on them. Common stock holding means being along for the ride. It could be a good ride, or it could be a bad ride. The point is, it's a ride. You don't get to steer.

StrictlyCircus
Jan 15, 2007, 05:27 PM
Seems like some people are delusional about what being a shareholder means.

You own a piece of paper, not the company... as idealistic as it may be for all shareholders to have a piece of the company, it's just not true. Large shareholders and options holders have say because they have the ability to influence the stock's value.

mccldwll
Jan 15, 2007, 05:52 PM
My burning questions:

1) Who decided on the name change of Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc. ?

2) Was this decision voted by the board ?

3) Why was this decision not brought before the shareholders for a vote ?

edit: I think this is material and that all shareholders should have voted on an issue of this importance. What if the board (or Steve) decided to name the company something completely different?

Despite what Steve thinks, and the way he acts, this is a public company - no longer his own private kingdom being run from his garage!

Obviously the board decided on the name change (that is a board decision) and of course they voted on it. It was not brought before the shareholders for a vote because it was not necessary to do so. Had it been brought before the shareholders, and had all responded (fat chance) I'm fairly certain over 95% would have been in favor of the change since more accurately reflects the present and future direction of Apple into media and communication, and it certainly shouldn't decrease stock value. If you have more questions of this nature, read the Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws.

bryanc
Jan 15, 2007, 06:09 PM
A few people making decisions for 5000000 without asking ... Last time I looked that was called a Dictatorship.

I thought it was call "The United States of America". Did they change the name too?

Cheers

DTphonehome
Jan 15, 2007, 06:15 PM
Last time I looked that was called a Democracy.

A few people making decisions for 5000000 without asking ... Last time I looked that was called a Dictatorship.

No, that's called a representative democracy (and it's the system of government in the US and other countries). A dictatorship is where one person rules with total authority.

StuPidQPid
Jan 15, 2007, 06:45 PM
A dictatorship is where one person rules with total authority.

Ah. We're back to Steve Jobs then :)

twoodcc
Jan 15, 2007, 06:47 PM
another stock boost to AAPL! :D

hopefully.....looking forward to the results :)

blashphemy
Jan 15, 2007, 07:01 PM
Is it possible for Apple to release anything during the report, even if its only a paper release and not talked about during the actual presentation?

scu
Jan 15, 2007, 07:02 PM
Any predictions on how many iPods were sold last quarter?

I am guessing 21 million.

abrooks
Jan 15, 2007, 07:08 PM
Is it possible for Apple to release anything during the report, even if its only a paper release and not talked about during the actual presentation?

Why would they want to do this? The results are no doubt going to be amazing so they wouldn't want to take attention away with a quiet product release.

DTphonehome
Jan 15, 2007, 07:55 PM
Is it possible for Apple to release anything during the report, even if its only a paper release and not talked about during the actual presentation?

No...that's not what these conference calls/webcasts are for. This is for finances.

MrBigMac
Jan 15, 2007, 08:34 PM
Steve Jobs made a GREAT decision to remove computers from the co name. They do a lot mo than pooters now.

My burning questions:



1) Who decided on the name change of Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc. ?

2) Was this decision voted by the board ?

3) Why was this decision not brought before the shareholders for a vote ?

edit: I think this is material and that all shareholders should have voted on an issue of this importance. What if the board (or Steve) decided to name the company something completely different?

Despite what Steve thinks, and the way he acts, this is a public company - no longer his own private kingdom being run from his garage!

mwswami
Jan 15, 2007, 09:41 PM
Split Split Split :D :D :D

bmoseley07
Jan 15, 2007, 10:06 PM
Split Split Split :D :D :D

I definitely wouldn't mind one of those. I'd buy some more if it happened, I know that.

ddubbo
Jan 16, 2007, 03:10 AM
I strongly recommend to sell. Why?

1-st. Currently AAPL tripled to it's real value. It's a normal when there is a strong expectation for further multiple-year growth. Apple slowed it's growth at 2006 compared to 2005. When income growth at 2005 was 480% -at 2006 only 50%. PC sell growth slowed from 38% to 20%. iPod sells was excellent, however. But now they encounter far more severe competition from Creative and Sundisk, which can down their market share to 60 or even 50%.

2-nd. It's seems that Apple put all theirs on iPhone as on main revenue booster. But lets think carefully. Smartphone market in USA at 2007 estimated about 10M-12M units. According to researches it grew at 2006 mainly because of price decreases and Blackberry(there are a lot of people whos only need from smartphone is to send emails). At March 2007 Nokia N95 enters the market, when it far more serious device at the same price than iPhone. So at the best case iPhone will be able to catch no more than 25-30% of non-blackberry,highest-end devises which stands about 4-5 M units. So let's assume that at this market they will sell maximum 2M devices + 2-3M will buy a people of Apple Congregation when they don't need it.
So at the best case at fiscal year 2007 Apple will make about 3.5B revenue from the iPhones. Let's assume that other growth will about 20% so it will give about 22-24B +3B of iPhone. So most optimistic estimate - that even with help of iPhone the revenue of 2007 won't exceed 27-28B, that will only about 30% growth compared to 2006.

So although Apple will still grow slowly, when investors will realize that there is no more room for growth anymore, the share will start to fall

mccldwll
Jan 16, 2007, 09:40 AM
I strongly recommend to sell. Why?

1-st. Currently AAPL tripled to it's real value. It's a normal when there is a strong expectation for further multiple-year growth. Apple slowed it's growth at 2006 compared to 2005. When income growth at 2005 was 480% -at 2006 only 50%. PC sell growth slowed from 38% to 20%. iPod sells was excellent, however. But now they encounter far more severe competition from Creative and Sundisk, which can down their market share to 60 or even 50%.

2-nd. It's seems that Apple put all theirs on iPhone as on main revenue booster. But lets think carefully. Smartphone market in USA at 2007 estimated about 10M-12M units. According to researches it grew at 2006 mainly because of price decreases and Blackberry(there are a lot of people whos only need from smartphone is to send emails). At March 2007 Nokia N95 enters the market, when it far more serious device at the same price than iPhone. So at the best case iPhone will be able to catch no more than 25-30% of non-blackberry,highest-end devises which stands about 4-5 M units. So let's assume that at this market they will sell maximum 2M devices + 2-3M will buy a people of Apple Congregation when they don't need it.
So at the best case at fiscal year 2007 Apple will make about 3.5B revenue from the iPhones. Let's assume that other growth will about 20% so it will give about 22-24B +3B of iPhone. So most optimistic estimate - that even with help of iPhone the revenue of 2007 won't exceed 27-28B, that will only about 30% growth compared to 2006.

So although Apple will still grow slowly, when investors will realize that there is no more room for growth anymore, the share will start to fall

Why would someone join MacRumors today, one day before earnings release, and immediately post two negative comments about Apple? Such comment are more often found on finance message boards where "bashers" (often paid by hedge funds) are constantly posting negatives about any given company in an attempt to knock a stock down a bit, so they can buy or cover a short position. Bashers do exist. They are not urban legends.

DTphonehome
Jan 16, 2007, 10:00 AM
I strongly recommend to sell. Why?

1-st. Currently AAPL tripled to it's real value. It's a normal when there is a strong expectation for further multiple-year growth. Apple slowed it's growth at 2006 compared to 2005. When income growth at 2005 was 480% -at 2006 only 50%. PC sell growth slowed from 38% to 20%. iPod sells was excellent, however. But now they encounter far more severe competition from Creative and Sundisk, which can down their market share to 60 or even 50%.

2-nd. It's seems that Apple put all theirs on iPhone as on main revenue booster. But lets think carefully. Smartphone market in USA at 2007 estimated about 10M-12M units. According to researches it grew at 2006 mainly because of price decreases and Blackberry(there are a lot of people whos only need from smartphone is to send emails). At March 2007 Nokia N95 enters the market, when it far more serious device at the same price than iPhone. So at the best case iPhone will be able to catch no more than 25-30% of non-blackberry,highest-end devises which stands about 4-5 M units. So let's assume that at this market they will sell maximum 2M devices + 2-3M will buy a people of Apple Congregation when they don't need it.
So at the best case at fiscal year 2007 Apple will make about 3.5B revenue from the iPhones. Let's assume that other growth will about 20% so it will give about 22-24B +3B of iPhone. So most optimistic estimate - that even with help of iPhone the revenue of 2007 won't exceed 27-28B, that will only about 30% growth compared to 2006.

So although Apple will still grow slowly, when investors will realize that there is no more room for growth anymore, the share will start to fall

Short much?

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2007, 10:04 AM
I definitely wouldn't mind one of those. I'd buy some more if it happened, I know that.

Why? Stock splits change nothing.

ddubbo
Jan 16, 2007, 10:12 AM
Why would someone join MacRumors today, one day before earnings release, and immediately post two negative comments about Apple? Such comment are more often found on finance message boards where "bashers" (often paid by hedge funds) are constantly posting negatives about any given company in an attempt to knock a stock down a bit, so they can buy or cover a short position. Bashers do exist. They are not urban legends.
When someone will pay me for posting comments at forums, it'll be a luckiest day of my life.
I just analyze the numbers and don't think negative or positive about the stock I investigate.
I invest only for long term to companies, when I expect significant growth next years. I rode on AAPL two years and earned a lot, but now, it seems, the horse is dead(I mean that apple became a big stable company)

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2007, 10:39 AM
When someone will pay me for posting comments at forums, it'll be a luckiest day of my life.
I just analyze the numbers and don't think negative or positive about the stock I investigate.
I invest only for long term to companies, when I expect significant growth next years. I rode on AAPL two years and earned a lot, but now, it seems, the horse is dead(I mean that apple became a big stable company)

I believe what you are saying is that AAPL has moved from the "growth" to the "value" investment column. Even if that were true (and I'm not convinced that it is), I'm not sure it would be a bad thing from an investor's standpoint.

ddubbo
Jan 16, 2007, 10:52 AM
I believe what you are saying is that AAPL has moved from the "growth" to the "value" investment column. Even if that were true (and I'm not convinced that it is), I'm not sure it would be a bad thing from an investor's standpoint.
In order to be in a "value" column it should be twice cheaper. That's exactly what's going to happen in a year or two

mccldwll
Jan 16, 2007, 11:12 AM
In order to be in a "value" column it should be twice cheaper. That's exactly what's going to happen in a year or two

That's a bashing, "weapons of mass destruction", fear-inducing post. It has nothing to do with the thread. Sounds like after riding aapl for a couple years (if true) you switched to short position. Not working out too well. Why after being long aapl for 2 years, and as an investor wanting to know as much about aapl as possible, did you join yesterday? Fails the smell test for me.

ddubbo
Jan 16, 2007, 11:29 AM
That's a bashing, "weapons of mass destruction", fear-inducing post. It has nothing to do with the thread. Sounds like after riding aapl for a couple years (if true) you switched to short position. Not working out too well. Why after being long aapl for 2 years, and as an investor wanting to know as much about aapl as possible, did you join yesterday? Fails the smell test for me.
Personally for you. I'm not at shorts, I'm out. I don't like all that stuff like shorts, options, futures etc. I invest into a stocks that I believe will grow at least 30% next year and seeking real companies with real products for mass consumption that can conquer or establish real markets. But it my personal attitude and i don't think that it is interesting someone here. Sorry for off-top.

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2007, 11:59 AM
In order to be in a "value" column it should be twice cheaper. That's exactly what's going to happen in a year or two

Not necessarily -- the transition from growth to value doesn't have to come with a crash in the stock price, it is more likely to come from a gradual lowering of forward PE over a period of years to reflect the projected EPS growth.

mccldwll
Jan 16, 2007, 12:03 PM
Not necessarily -- the transition from growth to value doesn't have to come with a crash in the stock price, it is more likely to come from a gradual lowering of forward PE over a period of years to reflect the projected EPS growth.

Well stated, Ignatius.

ddubbo
Jan 16, 2007, 12:14 PM
Not necessarily -- the transition from growth to value doesn't have to come with a crash in the stock price, it is more likely to come from a gradual lowering of forward PE over a period of years to reflect the projected EPS growth.
Real scenario, too. But i always try imagine a worst case. When you goes for a long time, firstly you think about to eliminate the risks

NVRsayNVR
Jan 16, 2007, 12:46 PM
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Kresh on this one.

Changing a company's name, whether it's just taking a word out or not, is not an everyday operation and could effect the stock adversely.

Although, I can see where SJ wouldn't want to do this, with his secrecy policy n all.


The name has not really changed! It is still "Apple" (as we all know them to be). This year is a huge time for them to expand thier products further and define the company name to reflect that they make more then great computers and the best OS. IMHO, where they are heading is a consumer electronics company with a "pro" division in each segment. This means great growth potential for Apple and ultimately us. An adjustment to the name is NOT GOING TO negatively affect anything!

Imagine if you will, "breakthrough" digital camera's, game players and an ultra cool, large flatscreen HD collabration with a company like Sony (with built in computing by Apple of course). Is this not where we share holders really want them to go? To me this is great news and Steve has my trust with his vision of Apple's future growth decisions. If it really hurts you, sell your stock!

"Think Alike... BE Different!"

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2007, 01:10 PM
Real scenario, too. But i always try imagine a worst case. When you goes for a long time, firstly you think about to eliminate the risks

Good luck eliminating risk when investing in equities!

It's not a bad mental exercise to imagine worst-case scenarios, especially when you're seeing what looks like too many overly enthusiastic blue-sky scenarios. The difficult part is knowing which prognostication is actionable.

ddubbo
Jan 16, 2007, 01:45 PM
Good luck eliminating risk when investing in equities!

It's not a bad mental exercise to imagine worst-case scenarios, especially when you're seeing what looks like too many overly enthusiastic blue-sky scenarios. The difficult part is knowing which prognostication is actionable.

At the case with AAPL it's pretty hard to do. Too much depends on Mr. Jobs.
Tomorrow he reinvents hamburger, and stock will jump 20%. Or he could lose to Sisco and it'll go down 10%.

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2007, 02:00 PM
At the case with AAPL it's pretty hard to do. Too much depends on Mr. Jobs.
Tomorrow he reinvents hamburger, and stock will jump 20%. Or he could lose to Sisco and it'll go down 10%.

So I have remarked many times in the past. Apple needs to demonstrate that they've got leadership depth.

It's "Cisco" btw, unless you were referring to the food services company, in which case it's "Sysco." ;)

bmoseley07
Jan 16, 2007, 03:31 PM
The name has not really changed! It is still "Apple" (as we all know them to be). This year is a huge time for them to expand thier products further and define the company name to reflect that they make more then great computers and the best OS. IMHO, where they are heading is a consumer electronics company with a "pro" division in each segment. This means great growth potential for Apple and ultimately us. An adjustment to the name is NOT GOING TO negatively affect anything!

Imagine if you will, "breakthrough" digital camera's, game players and an ultra cool, large flatscreen HD collabration with a company like Sony (with built in computing by Apple of course). Is this not where we share holders really want them to go? To me this is great news and Steve has my trust with his vision of Apple's future growth decisions. If it really hurts you, sell your stock!

"Think Alike... BE Different!"

I wasn't saying it was a bad thing and doesn't hurt me at all. I completely agree. All I'm saying is that when there is a big decision to be made that could potentially affect the value of the stock, shareholders should have some say.

Now, I agree with you that taking the Computer from the name isn't the biggest deal in the world, but it could affect some shareholders view of Apple and maybe they don't like the direction the company is going.

And again, this doesn't hurt me one bit. I actually like the direction they're going and to answer why a stock split would matter to me is because I, and presumably many others, would be able to buy more stock. That's usually one of the main reasons in splitting a stock.

NVRsayNVR
Jan 16, 2007, 04:19 PM
Cool ::cool:

Let's ride with Apple Inc. and make some money to pay for our toys! :D :D :D

scu
Jan 16, 2007, 07:40 PM
We will see very impressive numbers tomorrow. But what will suprise many is how hot the new AppleTV is and how it will influence 2qrt numbers.

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6464002/wo/mB2k4DpEKUXc2cwzYtRHxEOjpcR/0.0.21.1.0.8.63.0.7.1.0.1.1.1.1.0

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2007, 11:24 PM
We will see very impressive numbers tomorrow. But what will suprise many is how hot the new AppleTV is and how it will influence 2qrt numbers.

Are you serious? How can a product that isn't even on the market yet be "hot?"

stoid
Jan 17, 2007, 12:30 AM
So......

Did anyone catch the results?

rdowns
Jan 17, 2007, 03:43 AM
So......

Did anyone catch the results?

And if you did, please also give me the lottery results for tonight.

Announcement is in about 12 hours.

Embed
Jan 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq107/
says that it has started for me (5pm ET) but i can seem to find how to watch??
nothing in Quicktime itself or on the link.

am i not able to watch it??

skunk
Jan 17, 2007, 11:09 AM
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq107/
says that it has started for me (5pm ET) but i can seem to find how to watch??
nothing in Quicktime itself or on the link.

am i not able to watch it??I expect not, as it's only 17.09 GMT. Try waiting another five hours.

Embed
Jan 17, 2007, 11:13 AM
damn im stupid,
my brain was thinking ET = eastern time for europe!!
my bad :mad:

cheers anyhow

wscapital
Jan 17, 2007, 11:35 AM
The 100 calls went nuts yesterday, suggesting that the stock will break that level.

From my checks, AAPL will report monstrous Macbook and absolutely ridiculous iPod shipments - but the stock has come so far in such a short time, I would almost expect a sell-the-news reaction.

Thanks to the iPhone though, there is a floor under the share price at least.

Should be a wild ride starting at 430....

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2007, 11:52 AM
I would almost expect a sell-the-news reaction.

That would be the typical pattern, unless they beat consensus EPS by 10% or better (meaning, they report earnings north of $0.85/share). Guidance for Q2 will also have an impact, probably.

rdowns
Jan 17, 2007, 12:30 PM
That would be the typical pattern, unless they beat consensus EPS by 10% or better (meaning, they report earnings north of $0.85/share). Guidance for Q2 will also have an impact, probably.

Guidance for Q2 worries me. With only the AppleTV and no other announced new revenue stream (Leopard, iLife), Apple will likely offer their typical low estimate.

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2007, 12:44 PM
Guidance for Q2 worries me. With only the AppleTV and no other announced new revenue stream (Leopard, iLife), Apple will likely offer their typical low estimate.

The company setting low targets that can easily be exceeded is part of the game. Looking between the lines is the part of the game played by the analysts.

Isn't Leopard scheduled for release in Q2? During these conference calls, Apple also typically alludes to other "great products" in the pipeline, while refusing to offer specifics.

Rocketman
Jan 17, 2007, 03:37 PM
EPS out of the park 1.18 vs estimate 0.78.

Revenue growth 27%, Profit growth 78%, iPod sales up 50%.

Mac sales below estimates.

Rocketman

:)

rdowns
Jan 17, 2007, 03:38 PM
PR Newswire 4:30 pm January 17, 2007

Apple(R) today announced financial results for its fiscal 2007 first quarter ended December 30, 2006. The Company posted record revenue of $7.1 billion and record net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $5.7 billion and net quarterly profit of $565 million, or $.65 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 31.2 percent, up from 27.2 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 42 percent of the quarter's revenue.

Apple shipped 1,606,000 Macintosh(R) computers and 21,066,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 28 percent growth in Macs and 50 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.

"We are incredibly pleased to report record quarterly revenue of over $7 billion and record earnings of $1 billion," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "We've just kicked off what is going to be a very strong new product year for Apple by launching Apple TV and the revolutionary iPhone."

"We generated over $1.75 billion in cash during the quarter to end with $11.9 billion," said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple's CFO. "Looking ahead to the second fiscal quarter of 2007, we expect revenue of $4.8 to $4.9 billion and earnings per diluted share of $.54 to $.56."

Apple will provide live streaming of its Q1 2007 financial results conference call utilizing QuickTime(R), Apple's standards-based technology for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will begin at 2:00 p.m. PST on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq107/ and will also be available for replay. The QuickTime player is available free for Macintosh and Windows users at www.apple.com/quicktime.

Embed
Jan 17, 2007, 03:57 PM
stream is up, get to listen to some funky classical music before hand :D

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2007, 05:03 PM
Beat the street by 50%, down for the day. Typical.




:rolleyes:

scu
Jan 17, 2007, 07:24 PM
Any predictions on how many iPods were sold last quarter?

I am guessing 21 million.

One of the rare occasions when I guessed right.:D

The AppleTV is the number #1 pre-order seller on the Apple Store.

IJ Reilly
Jan 17, 2007, 07:57 PM
One of the rare occasions when I guessed right.:D

The AppleTV is the number #1 pre-order seller on the Apple Store.

Nice guess!

The "top seller" list is not necessarily in rank order.