Apple Widens Lead Over Nokia as Most Profitable Handset Manufacturer

[2992]

PC=Pocket Computer=iPhone

nope.
iPhone is not a (pocket) computer. It's a multimedia device, and a multimedia device is not a PC.
When you'll be able to run (real productivity) apps as you can run on a PC, then write that comment again, until then: iphone=multimedia_pseudosingletasked_device.

PS: I have one, so I know that.

 

[BongoBanger]

The article is quite funny as are some of the responses.

Congratulations if you're an AAPL stockholder. The rest of you should consider the fact that this revenue is funded by Apple's policy of charging huge mark ups on their products that generate margins in the region of 35-40%. It's probably not that clever to be celebrating paying that much over the odds.

Anyway, Nokia are still an enormously profitable compnay - when they aren't making unwise TPAs that is - with a very clear future strategy: convert the dumbphone market to smartphones by providing a range of low cost (and therefore low margin) smartphones. Their high end is, unfortunately, pretty woeful at the moment and they don't have anything that compares to the iPhone, HTC Hero or HTC HD2 but it'll be interestign to see the impact the N900 has. I don't think it'll be a market buster in itself but it will surely pave the way for an N900 series of phones - some slimmer without physical keyboards an with capacitive screens - which will take market share back.

Apple's issue is that they have one top dog product just now. As soon as someone betters it or - more likely - when a sufficient number of equivalent phones are available, then its market share and profatibility will slide.

The mobile market is brutal and fast. No-one is immune and everyone - including Apple - needs to keep up as today's kings are tomorrow's paupers. That's why Nokia take a very broad approach and look to maintain the overall market rather than being temporary kings of the high end.

 

[gnasher729]

Congratulations if you're an APPL stockholder.

Why? Appell Petroleum (APPL) hasn't been trading for many years now.

Now if you had sold your APPL shares a few years ago and bought AAPL (Apple Inc.) instead, that's something different.

 

[*LTD*]

Apple's issue is that they have one top dog product just now. As soon as someone betters it or - more likely - when a sufficient number of equivalent phones are available, then its market share and profatibility will slide.

Dream on. The game's already over and we know who the winner is.

iPhone = iPod phenomenon.

 

[Veri]

The money is THERE, it EXISTS. In a ponzi scheme it does not.

The value of your Apple shares currently exists in the pocket of future investors. The fact that they symbolise ownership of the company is only relevant if you can make the company work for you; regardless, the market cap does not EXIST at the company.

OK, must work now. Thanks for the discussion last night, guys. I don't think we're disagreeing on the mechanics of the market, merely on the relevance its ability to behave outside of what might be intended. It is always interesting to see how people /feel/ about an investment.

 

[sparks9]

These outrageously high profit margins Apple is making are beginning to annoy me.

 

[BongoBanger]

Dream on. The game's already over and we know who the winner is.

Sure. It's the one that can diversify and keep up with market trends. The iPhone - or rather Apple - may be that phone, it may not. To say "the game is over" is a bit naive based on sales trends though.

iPhone = iPod phenomenon.

Possibly. They would need to release variants and even then it's still pretty unlikely.

Why? Appell Petroleum (APPL) hasn't been trading for many years now.

Now if you had sold your APPL shares a few years ago and bought AAPL (Apple Inc.) instead, that's something different.

Thanks, I've amended my post. What would we do without the grammar police?

 

[greygray]

Way to go ! Now where's xciteme?

 

[Mr Maui]

The value of your Apple shares currently exists in the pocket of future investors. The fact that they symbolise ownership of the company is only relevant if you can make the company work for you; regardless, the market cap does not EXIST at the company.

OK, must work now. Thanks for the discussion last night, guys. I don't think we're disagreeing on the mechanics of the market, merely on the relevance its ability to behave outside of what might be intended. It is always interesting to see how people /feel/ about an investment.

It appears Veri will beat a dead point until blue in the face. Hey all AAPL shareholders. Cupertino does not exist. Apple does not exist. The $34B in cash/equivalents does not exist. The $1B server farm in NC won't really exist. That iPhone in your pocket or Mac on your desk must not exist either. Only the illusion of something in the pocket of future investors exists.

If Apple's value does not exist, imagine the worthlessness of Google when the majority of what they produce is imagery in cyberspace with Veri's theory. LOL

These outrageously high profit margins Apple is making are beginning to annoy me.

But AAPL shareholders continue to love them for it. Imagine the profits Nokia could make if they had the ability to charge such margins. This entire post would not have started.

Then again, imagine how many MORE iPhones would be selling if Nokia tried to make more money from the simple cell phones they make now. Hopefully, for their sake, the N900 will start a new trend for them. Until then, they can only continue to look up to the new leader in smartphone technology ... Apple!

 

[mactree]

Nokia had it coming. I was buying a new phone every year for sad new features like.. snake 'now in color'. If they had really been trying to push the bar forward all those years rather than just changing up their body style, they wouldn't be in this situation.
however, I still like that we use the word 'Only' profited 1.1 billion in Q3

 

[Mr Maui]

they had it coming. I was buying a new phone every year for sad new features like.. snake 'now in color'. If they had really been trying to push the bar forward all those years rather than just changing up their body style, they wouldn't be in this situation.
however, I still like that we use the word 'Only' profited 1.1 billion in Q3

Well ... when you compare it to AAPL's $1.6B in Q3 with only 1 phone at a time (unless you consider the 3GS and 3G, last year's phone, at the same time as more than one phone) over the past 2.5 years versus Nokia's many products simultaneously over the past decade ... I'd say the word "ONLY" is quite appropriate.

 

[hashholly]

The article is quite funny as are some of the responses.

Congratulations if you're an AAPL stockholder. The rest of you should consider the fact that this revenue is funded by Apple's policy of charging huge mark ups on their products that generate margins in the region of 35-40%. It's probably not that clever to be celebrating paying that much over the odds.

Anyway, Nokia are still an enormously profitable compnay - when they aren't making unwise TPAs that is - with a very clear future strategy: convert the dumbphone market to smartphones by providing a range of low cost (and therefore low margin) smartphones. Their high end is, unfortunately, pretty woeful at the moment and they don't have anything that compares to the iPhone, HTC Hero or HTC HD2 but it'll be interestign to see the impact the N900 has. I don't think it'll be a market buster in itself but it will surely pave the way for an N900 series of phones - some slimmer without physical keyboards an with capacitive screens - which will take market share back.

Apple's issue is that they have one top dog product just now. As soon as someone betters it or - more likely - when a sufficient number of equivalent phones are available, then its market share and profatibility will slide.

The mobile market is brutal and fast. No-one is immune and everyone - including Apple - needs to keep up as today's kings are tomorrow's paupers. That's why Nokia take a very broad approach and look to maintain the overall market rather than being temporary kings of the high end.

Honestly, so what? No one is forced to buy an Apple product and pay a "huge markup" as you call it, people choose too, i don't think anyone that buys an apple product is oblivious to its higher profit margin.

 

[mactree]

Well ... when you compare it to AAPL's $1.6B in Q3 with only 1 phone at a time (unless you consider the 3GS and 3G, last year's phone, at the same time as more than one phone) over the past 2.5 years versus Nokia's many products simultaneously over the past decade ... I'd say the word "ONLY" is quite appropriate.

True indeed.

 

[*LTD*]

The rest of you should consider the fact that this revenue is funded by Apple's policy of charging huge mark ups on their products that generate margins in the region of 35-40%.

And people are buying. In a recession.

 

[cameronjpu]

The article is quite funny as are some of the responses.

Congratulations if you're an AAPL stockholder. The rest of you should consider the fact that this revenue is funded by Apple's policy of charging huge mark ups on their products that generate margins in the region of 35-40%. It's probably not that clever to be celebrating paying that much over the odds.

I used to have a Joe job at a bank making $25 an hour (salaried, but that's what it worked out to). Then I quit and started my own computer repair company. I now make $90 an hour. I hate it when entities make a profit. Everyone should charge whatever they need to to scrape by and make rent, and maybe afford a rental movie every few weeks. Anyone charging more than the minimum for willing customers should be ashamed.

(sarcasm)

 

[Bubba Satori]

Go plutocrats. AppleT&T for the rich of us.
$50 billion in the bank next year. It just works.

"With their noses in the air..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG3PnQ3tgzY

 

[Speedy2]

The value of your Apple shares currently exists in the pocket of future investors. The fact that they symbolise ownership of the company is only relevant if you can make the company work for you; regardless, the market cap does not EXIST at the company.

Ownership is not only relevant when you control the company, what a stupid notion. In fact, most companies are controlled by more than one shareholder, each one of them not able to exert control. Many big companies have more than 50% widely held stock.

You are completely missing the point.
_We_ were talking about the profits, that Apple chooses to keep on their bank account, not about the market cap. They do exist and this is not in ANY way influenced by the fact that AAPL is not paying dividends. Other people were talking market cap. The fact that market cap is not equal to money in the bank in trivial and undoubted. It does contain speculation and future hopes. Still, it allows to compare different companies that follow the same market mechanisms and it is backed up by marketable value. It surely is not comparable to a Ponzi scheme, that has no or not enough underlying value. Ponzi schemes work by lying to investors and deceiving the market.

It is always interesting to see how people /feel/ about an investment.

Spare us the condescendence. I'm not invested in Apple, nor is everyone else here. You are facing strong opposition simply because of the utter nonsense your spreading.

 

[Mr Maui]

Ownership is not only relevant when you control the company, what a stupid notion. In fact, most companies are controlled by more than one shareholder, each one of them not able to exert control. Many big companies have more than 50% widely held stock.

You are completely missing the point.
_We_ were talking about the profits, that Apple chooses to keep on their bank account, not about the market cap. They do exist and this is not in ANY way influenced by the fact that AAPL is not paying dividends. Other people were talking market cap. The fact that market cap is not equal to money in the bank in trivial and undoubted. It does contain speculation and future hopes. Still, it allows to compare different companies that follow the same market mechanisms and it is backed up by marketable value. It surely is not comparable to a Ponzi scheme, that has no or not enough underlying value. Ponzi schemes work by lying to investors and deceiving the market.

Spare us the condescendence. I'm not invested in Apple, nor is everyone else here. You are facing strong opposition simply because of the utter nonsense your spreading.

Leave it rest, Speedy. Veri has already established their ignorance ... or at the very least, foolishness.

 

[Consultant]

The article is quite funny as are some of the responses.

Congratulations if you're an AAPL stockholder. The rest of you should consider the fact that this revenue is funded by Apple's policy of charging huge mark ups on their products that generate margins in the region of 35-40%. It's probably not that clever to be celebrating paying that much over the odds.

Anyway, Nokia are still an enormously profitable compnay - when they aren't making unwise TPAs that is - with a very clear future strategy: convert the dumbphone market to smartphones by providing a range of low cost (and therefore low margin) smartphones. Their high end is, unfortunately, pretty woeful at the moment and they don't have anything that compares to the iPhone, HTC Hero or HTC HD2 but it'll be interestign to see the impact the N900 has. I don't think it'll be a market buster in itself but it will surely pave the way for an N900 series of phones - some slimmer without physical keyboards an with capacitive screens - which will take market share back.

Apple's issue is that they have one top dog product just now. As soon as someone betters it or - more likely - when a sufficient number of equivalent phones are available, then its market share and profatibility will slide.

The mobile market is brutal and fast. No-one is immune and everyone - including Apple - needs to keep up as today's kings are tomorrow's paupers. That's why Nokia take a very broad approach and look to maintain the overall market rather than being temporary kings of the high end.

You are way off on the mark up. If you don't understand the financial statements, go take a class.

LOL. Temporary?

Let's see, rated best phone of 2008, 2009 by J.D. Powers. Best consumer AND business phone in their 2009 study.
http://obamapacman.com/2009/10/stud...ction-for-consumer-business-smartphone-users/

What you claimed has been claimed before. That's what the slow people said when the iPhone was first announced. Actually that's what people said when the iPod was first introduced.

These outrageously high profit margins Apple is making are beginning to annoy me.

Are you blind? Nokia would have a higher margin if they didn't waste over $4 billion every year with little to show for.

 

[Macsterguy]

Two words...

google droid

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Dream on. The game's already over and we know who the winner is.

iPhone = iPod phenomenon.

You don't get it. There isn't a winner or loser here. Even if there was a winner or loser who's to say when the game started or when it will end.

 

[silentnite]

Well, that's news to me. I had no idea Nokia was still in the race. It's all about the iphone & blackberry if you ask me.

Hat's off to apple. (again) take a bow!

 

[zacman]

Nokia sales more smartphones in a quarter than Apple has ever sold Iphones in total over all the years. And not eveb speaking about the 75 million non smartphones that Nokia sales every quarter. And not speaking about the technology that Apple has apparently stolen from Nokia to develop the iPhone.

 

[twoodcc]

great for apple and the iphone. i'm glad to have one

 

[Mr Maui]

Nokia sales more smartphones in a quarter than Apple has ever sold Iphones in total over all the years. And not eveb speaking about the 75 million non smartphones that Nokia sales every quarter. And not speaking about the technology that Apple has apparently stolen from Nokia to develop the iPhone.

Why don't we stick to what the original article addressed. Although Nokia sells "significantly" more phones than Apple, Apple makes "significantly" more money from them AND has only been in the market for 2.5 years versus over a decade for Nokia. This was the point of the original article. Apple had $500M more in profits with their small market share than Nokia had with their very large marketshare.

Additionally, investors also throw your theory out the window. AAPL market cap is $183.4B, NOK market cap is $50.8B. Investors and users alike choose Apple phones over Nokia phones. The majority of people who still use Nokia phones (before the N900 which may help them finally), use them because they can get them for little to no cost from the service providers. FREE sways many decisions.

Well, that's news to me. I had no idea Nokia was still in the race. It's all about the iphone & blackberry if you ask me.

Of course they are still in the race (albeit it way down the list when it comes to making money). Perhaps the N900 can move them back up.

On the "in the race" theory ... remember ... at some point every season, the Cubs are in the race to win the World Series, but at some point they usually finish well behind the best. Such is the life of Nokia when chasing AAPL, RIMM and even GOOG.