Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Widens Lead Over Nokia as Most Profitable Handset Manufacturer

I am really happy for Apple and the success of the iPhone.

It is also very interesting to watch the mobile computing revolution unfold before our eyes. I wasn't alive during the desktop computing revolution, so now I can see this instead. It is amazing how well Apple has learned its lessons from the past. I don't have a doubt that they are going to be a HUGE player, if not THE player in the mobile world and future! :cool:

Microsoft has NOT learned its lessons lol and you can see their future looking bleak, especially in the mobile world. But that will have a HUGE impact on the other areas of their business, because mobile is the future computing platform! They just never get it! Always too little too late, then imitate and try to catch up! The only reason they are still around is because of the mass locked-in revenue they get from OEMs that Bill negotiated forever ago! :rolleyes:

I am also really starting to wonder about Palm and WebOS! :confused: Unless they make a HUGE push fast on other carriers, things are not looking good for them. I hope they step up, because I think WebOS really is a great product, and good competition for Apple.
 
Veri said:
Making money from wild stock price increases when the stock does not pay dividends is irrational/unenlightened selfishness, getting in on a sophisticated version of a Ponzi scheme.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Have you been living under a rock for the past year? There was nothing irrational about aapl's increase. It was just a recovery from the worst crash in 80 years. It simply returned to its previous, well deserved level, and then a bit more. It was one of the very few companies to hit an all time high post recession. It's price is based on its future earning potential. Unfortunately for NOK shareholders, so is its price.
 
Mr Maui said:
No need to argue with each other, but perhaps you can name a few bond holdings you had in the past year that had a 106% total return on investment (like AAPLs stock price growth). Do not include multiple trades or options trades on anything ... only a single buy and hold for one year.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking about two different ways of investing and making money. I work on a year to year basis with how much profit I can make in that year. I agree a 106% return on investment is great but that is a long term hold. You have no more money in your pocket today vs yesterday. You have more money in your investment. People come on the forum and get excited about apple posting a profit like that money is directly going into their pocket as a share holder. It is not. It is going directly into apple's pocket. The shareholders and market like a good profit so the stock may or may not increase. You have no money till you sell. This is how most people think of the market, as you mentioned a single buy and hold. Let me ask you this, when will you sell this stock to cash in on apple's profits?
 
Mattie Num Nums said:
Net Income - 4.33 Billion USD vs. 3.98 Billion Euro according to Wiki
Click to expand...

Is that suppose to be 4.33B USD for AAPL vs. 3.98B Euro (approx 6B USD)?

What is the time period for your comparison? Are you comparing "full company" revenue or just phone revenue? Be specific when making your points.

Shiner said:
I think we are talking about two different ways of investing and making money. I work on a year to year basis with how much profit I can make in that year. I agree a 106$ return on investment is great but that is a long term hold. You have no more money in your pocket today vs yesterday. You have more money in your investment. People come on the forum and get excited about apple posting a profit like that money is directly going into their pocket as a share holder. It is not. It is going directly into apple's pocket. The shareholders and market like a good profit so the stock may or may not increase. You have no money till you sell. This is how most people think of the market, as you mentioned a single buy and hold. Let me ask you this, when will you sell this stock to cash in on apple's profits?
Click to expand...

My point was simple. There is no bond that compares returns with a long-term hold like AAPL stock. I agree that there could be a greater return if AAPL payed some of the $34B in cash as a dividend. But having the cash available they were able to purchase companies like P.A. Semi (to design their own chips and not have to depend on others), to secure LARGE volumes of flash memory at low cost (by paying cash in advance), thus impeding the progress of their competitors, etc. Through these things, they are able to continue to grow their company and thus their stock price.

As a day trader, I can make a ton of money buying and selling regularly for profits, but I believe AAPL is closing in on MSFT in their market capitalization ($182.8B vs. $257.6B). I know they are bigger than IBM and GOOG now and I believe they may be the second largest tech market cap out there now. At present pace, they could pass MSFT within the year.
 
MacFly123 said:
It is also very interesting to watch the mobile computing revolution unfold before our eyes.
Click to expand...

Hm, the Psion Series 3a I've had since the early '90s was/is a nicer mobile device for doing actual work (i.e. writing, reading and e-mail, rather than web browsing) and is not much larger than the iPhone. The keyboard and screen are soooo pleasant, even after 16 years. Via rs232 to bluetooth, I can tether it to my mobile phone. All on an 8088-compatible powered by 2 AAs.

I just don't see a revolution. The 'phones are getting larger and the laptops smaller, merging into, well, a Psion Series 3a.

mccldwll said:
It was one of the very few companies to hit an all time high post recession. It's price is based on its future earning potential.
Click to expand...
And why, precisely, should anyone care about Apple's future earning potential when they don't pay dividends?
 
Speedy2 said:
You must know that those 31B in cash are not going to disappear.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong about this, but AFAIK, that's "$31B in cash AND investments". While you're right in that the case will always be there, who knows what could happen to those investments.
 
Veri said:
... And why, precisely, should anyone care about Apple's future earning potential when they don't pay dividends?
Click to expand...

Because their stock price is up 106% in the past year.

Can you name any other TECH company that is up 106% for the year, up over 150% since March ($78 to $203), pays a dividend, continued to be profitable during the recent recession, AND has over $34B in cash/equivalents available to do acquisitions, R&D, etc. Apple can choose to pay a dividend at any time ... and eventually they will, but they are on the hunt to be the best Tech company in existence, and soon their market cap (i.e. profit for shareholders) will show that.
 
Mr Maui said:
As a day trader, I can make a ton of money buying and selling regularly for profits, but I believe AAPL is closing in on MSFT in their market capitalization ($182.8B vs. $257.6B). I know they are bigger than IBM and GOOG now and I believe they may be the second largest tech market cap out there now. At present pace, they could pass MSFT within the year.
Click to expand...
I won't claim to be anywhere near an expert on the stock market, but it seems like people put a lot of importance on market capitalization.

While Apple may have a higher capitalization than IBM, I doubt anyone here would truly think that Apple has anywhere near the yearly revenue, income and something like over $100B in cash & assets. Plus, isn't Apple's trading volume for shares far higher?
 
Veri said:
Hm, the Psion Series 3a I've had since the early '90s was/is a nicer mobile device for doing actual work (i.e. writing, reading and e-mail, rather than web browsing) and is not much larger than the iPhone. The keyboard and screen are soooo pleasant, even after 16 years. Via rs232 to bluetooth, I can tether it to my mobile phone. All on an 8088-compatible powered by 2 AAs.
Click to expand...

WOW you don't get it!

There were several computers before the Mac ignited the personal computing revolution as there have been many "smart phones" and phones before the iPhone. But to deny that what has been happening since the iPhone is a revolution of mobile computing is a bit delusional.

The future is merely progressing to the 3 screens mantra. Your home computer and big screen, a medium side portable, and a mobile device like the iPhone. The tablet will fill the middle spot.

Point is, there is without a doubt a revolution going on. I guess it is just hard to see for those that don't have vision.
 
Mr Maui said:
Because their stock price is up 106% in the past year.
Click to expand...
That's obviously not the answer - we now have the circle: stock price goes up because of future earnings potential; future earnings potential is good because stock price goes up. Nothing is produced.

Apple can choose to pay a dividend at any time ... and eventually they will
Click to expand...
And that is the only reasonable answer (if the stock market is viewed as something other than a Ponzi scheme): because people are holding out for something they might just do.

but they are on the hunt to be the best Tech company in existence, and soon their market cap (i.e. profit for shareholders) will show that.
Click to expand...
How does "highest market cap" equal "best" except in the member-waving stakes? What is being created, apart from an unliquefiable number?
 
mccldwll said:
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Have you been living under a rock for the past year? There was nothing irrational about aapl's increase. It was just a recovery from the worst crash in 80 years. It simply returned to its previous, well deserved level, and then a bit more. It was one of the very few companies to hit an all time high post recession. It's price is based on its future earning potential. Unfortunately for NOK shareholders, so is its price.
Click to expand...

This is only partially true, aapl stock is also based in SJ. If anything happen to him, you'll see how well the future earning potential will be able to hold up the price.
 
Bafflefish said:
I may be wrong about this, but AFAIK, that's "$31B in cash AND investments". While you're right in that the case will always be there, who knows what could happen to those investments.
Click to expand...

They are very short term, very marketable, and of the type that if anything happens which could significantly adversely impact their value, then we'll all be in such deep s^&t that none of this will matter.
 
Bafflefish said:
I won't claim to be anywhere near an expert on the stock market, but it seems like people put a lot of importance on market capitalization.

While Apple may have a higher capitalization than IBM, I doubt anyone here would truly think that Apple has anywhere near the yearly revenue, income and something like over $100B in cash & assets. Plus, isn't Apple's trading volume for shares far higher?
Click to expand...

Check out the link below if you like ...

IBM vs. APPLE revenue

AAPL revenue is about half of IBMs revenue at the moment, so you are partially right that IBMs revenue is larger. However, compare the GROWTH of AAPL versus the FLAT TO DECLINE of IBM in the same time frame. Ask yourself which is a better company and which has greater future potential.

Keep in mind that IBM and AAPL are in different arenas (except that AAPL does create some server hardware/software), but this article began over AAPL vs. NOK.
 
fifthworld said:
This is only partially true, aapl stock is also based in SJ. If anything happen to him, you'll see how well the future earning potential will be able to hold up the price.
Click to expand...


A short term hit, yes. But again, you've clearly demonstrated that you really don't know what you're talking about. Why are you here? Do you work for Enderle?
 
mccldwll said:
A short term hit, yes. But again, you've clearly demonstrated that you really don't know what you're talking about. Why are you here? Do you work for Enderle?
Click to expand...

Don't really know what to say. Except that I certainly don't live inside your box.
 
Veri said:
That's obviously not the answer - we now have the circle: stock price goes up because of future earnings potential; future earnings potential is good because stock price goes up. Nothing is produced.
Click to expand...

Future earnings potential is based upon the products/services the company produces/offers. Apple continues to produce products people want as evidenced by the continued growth in sales, resulting in a growth in revenues and earnings, which ultimately results in the stock price increasing. Future earnings potential has NOTHING to do with the rise in stock price ... it is the reverse.

And that is the only reasonable answer (if the stock market is viewed as something other than a Ponzi scheme): because people are holding out for something they might just do.
Click to expand...

A ponzi scheme is a fabricated lie which appears to be something other than it is. The stock market is people investing in companies which produce actual products that people want and use, offer actual services that people want and use, etc. It may be true that there are some companies that are overvalued or even worthless, but comparing the stack market to a ponzi scheme is idiotic.

How does "highest market cap" equal "best" except in the member-waving stakes? What is being created, apart from an unliquefiable number?
Click to expand...

Highest market cap does not necessarily mean best (and I never said that "best" was due solely to market cap). However, the move people have invested in a company (i.e. AAPL vs. IBM), usually indicates that the investors believe that the company with a higher market cap has more value (actual or perceived). More value to the investor generally indicates "better company" (read: investment).
 
Speedy2 said:
You DO know how the stock market works, right?
Click to expand...

Sometimes it works as a way (1) to take a share of the profits by owning a share in a profitable company. This is wealth creation, and is sustainable.

Other times it works (2) like a Ponzi scheme. This makes a few people rich in the short term, but has nothing to do with creating value. It is not sustainable, whence bubbles and the resultant recessions.

It's fine to apply (2) in the short term as long as your final aim is (1). But people here seem to be praising high share value and market cap per se.

If your aim is to gamble that you can make yourself some one-off cash bonus in the short term (remember, this only happens when you've sold your stock), knock yourself out. But you're simply a party to (2).

If I've left any gaps in this very qualitative explanation of "how the stock market works", do tell. Remember, if dividends aren't of concern, the market cap of the ballpoint pen sitting in front of me (or any number of houses in this town, to take a timely example) could be traded up to $100 billion. What do you think happens then?

MrMaui said:
Future earning potential has NOTHING to do with the rise in stock price.
Click to expand...
In a previous post you continued from this line of argument that mccldwll started, so I was completing the circle. You're arguing that stock price goes up based on previous performance - but why would people want to buy shares based on what has happened, except when it's used as a predictor of what will happen? Surely your two viewpoints come to the same thing.

A ponzi scheme is a fabricated lie which appears to be something other than it is.
Click to expand...
But that's the problem: people /do/ misunderstand what the stock market is.

The stock market is people investing in companies which produce actual products that people want and use, offer actual services that people want and use, etc.
Click to expand...
This is true, but just because they invest in a company which produces "actual products that people want and use", it doesn't mean the company's productivity has anything to do with its behaviour wrt/ the stock market. Unless the company is actually producing something for the shareholders, it might as well be doing nothing at all, from the shareholder point of view.
 
mccldwll said:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...+cash+rich+companies&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Click to expand...

Appreciate the effort, but remember that the link you gave is 8 months (2-3 quarters) old. ;)

AAPL now has $34B cash / equivalents.

Veri said:
Sometimes it works as a way (1) to take a share of the profits by owning a share in a profitable company. This is wealth creation, and is sustainable.

Other times it works (2) like a Ponzi scheme. This makes a few people rich in the short term, but has nothing to do with creating value. It is not sustainable, whence bubbles and the resultant recessions.

It's fine to apply (2) in the short term as long as your final aim is (1). But people here seem to be praising high share value and market cap per se.

If your aim is to gamble that you can make yourself some one-off cash bonus in the short term (remember, this only happens when you've sold your stock), knock yourself out. But you're simply a party to (2).

If I've left any gaps in this very qualitative explanation of "how the stock market works", do tell. Remember, if dividends aren't of concern, the market cap of the ballpoint pen sitting in front of me (or any number of houses in this town, to take a timely example) could be traded up to $100 billion. What do you think happens then?
Click to expand...

So ... you're saying ... that every company that does not pay a dividend is a ponzi scheme?

What do you call companies that do pay a dividend? (Think AIG two years ago)

Perceived value is very real. If you doubt it, pull a $1 bill out of your pocket and a $20 bill out of your pocket. The ONLY difference in the two is the "perception" of their value. They are the same kind of paper with the same kind of ink, arranged slightly different on each one.
 
spazzcat said:
I think Andriod is going to be a geeks toy. I think its a great phone, and will make the iphone even better, but their marketing is wrong right now...
Click to expand...

And the phone itself is an eyesore. :( But that Android OS is beautiful AND less claustrophobic.
 
Aapl

Dividends are for stodgy boring companies that can only attract investors by paying them to hold stock.

Companies like AAPL only pay dividends when the growth cycle starts to wane. For AAPL that could be 2050?

I will happily take the gain from my AAPL shares buy them again on the pullbacks and bank the profits over and over again!

In fact with AAPL I like to buy deep in the money call options as a stock replacement, keep the cash in fixed income or dividend stocks and siphon off the gains. That way I can control far more shares without tying up the money. Massive gains with reduced downside, gotta love it.

AAPL has made more money for me than any dividend stock I have held.

Madoff was a Ponzi scheme, new investors, ficticious trades, creating payouts for the first investors to lure new lambs to the slaughter.

I am free to buy AAPL tomorrow and sell it next week locking the gain or loss as I see fit.

If you do not understand the market or how investing works buy an index fund!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back