Iphone 5 is beginning of end of apple dominance

sdf

not insider knowledge wrote:

apple sold more ipads in a year than the computer makers sold of their computers. so yeah they should worry. after all these years who is laughing now?

Not Jobs, cuz he dead

not insider knowledge wrote:

apple sold more ipads in a year than the computer makers sold of their computers. so yeah they should worry. after all these years who is laughing now?

Not Jobs, cuz he dead

You can spin it all you want. Apple dominance is not happening when another company is selling more phones. Apple profiting $295 per unit means they are overcharging. People will only get ripped off for so long, Apple will have to come up with something better. The biggest joke of the big release were the ipods. I can't imagine many people buying one of those that already has the current one.

Applebottom jeans wrote: You can spin it all you want. Apple dominance is not happening when another company is selling more phones. Apple profiting $295 per unit means they are overcharging. People will only get ripped off for so long, Apple will have to come up with something better. The biggest joke of the big release were the ipods. I can't imagine many people buying one of those that already has the current one.

You have a failure of understanding simple economics. Companies invest profit in new products, development, research, facility upgrades, and, gasp, improved employee benefits, like raises.

Samsung sold $72B of phones and had direct, and indirect expenses of $68B. That tells you Samsung spent most of the money in-house. It could also be that Samsung is not as efficient as Apple in making a phone. Something likely due to not controlling the software entirely in house.

Mobile Phones -> All Tab -> Mobile Phone Revenue

Microsoft's profits on Windows and Office are obscene; 63% for Windows down from 72% just 4 years ago. Office, helps pay for the upcoming windows phone software development, and things like the Zune.

SLIDE 9 of 9:

It could also be they are ripping people off because they are the cool company and people will pay for it. Apple outsources all the parts for those phones. They are a marketing company that makes software. Very unlikely Samsung are less efficient at making a phone and more likely Apple overcharges.

No, if you look at individual products for any company you will find the same. Leaders and losers.

You simply do not understand how companies operate so they can pay you a wage while staying in business.

GEEZ: A mod is posting on the anti-Apple side. "We are combating SPAM..."

APPLE STOCK wrote:

Regardless of the Samsung ruling,

iPhone 5 is not the cause but a symptom of the disease. There is nowhere left for Apple to go and the "status symbol" status of Apple has officially peaked.

Now everyone owns an iPhone and Mac Book and rich snobs will look for the "next thing."

Stock may still rise for a bit, but the tide has begun to turn. Short this stock in the next couple months.

Or, not:

"iPhone 5 Pre-Order Sells Out 20X Faster Than 4 And 4S, Further Highlighting Apple’s Dominance ....."

0/10

A Duck wrote:

turkey leg wrote:

If, by the end of dominance, you mean the end of Apple's superior innovation, I have to agree. Sure, their products are getting better but they're not industry changing like they were. 30 years from now, I think it'll be obvious that Jobs' death was the beginning of the end.

If you read a round a bit with cell phone technology you'll realize that the law of dominishing returns in new technologies to add or integrate into cell phones is declining....for all the cell phone makers...

This is exactly my point. Apple has not followed their winning strategy: "Think Different" since Jobs was around. Why is the IPhone still their big player? They've not developed a different product, only improved the old ones in the margins.

Their stock price and business success of late is simply the masses' attention catching up. Soon, the attention will catch up, if not already, and their financial success will be similar to others in that market.

APPLE STOCK wrote:

Short this stock in the next couple months.

This will be a good trade at some point, but when? The real question is where is the next $100 move? up or down?

AAPL is the same $200 stock it was at the end of 2007 only it has a new business selling iphones and ipads that's worth $500 now.

I believe like other companies in the past, AAPL will end up having a 7-10 year run where it trades sidesways to down offering very little chance to earn upside appreciation to shares.

I believe the amount of cash AAPL has stockpiled will make them more likely to look like a MSFT than a RIMM type story. where will it likely base out? my guess around $150-200 and it will take years to get there. 7-10 years is my best guess.

turkey leg wrote: This is exactly my point. Apple has not followed their winning strategy: "Think Different" since Jobs was around. Why is the IPhone still their big player? They've not developed a different product, only improved the old ones in the margins.

Did you realize that the the number 1 product seller for Samsung are phones? And, that their new phones are only marginal improvements on their old designs?

If you're planning on shorting Apple you'd better short Samsung. After all, Samsung stock has doubled in price since is up 27% this year compared to 30% for Apple?

Oh, but be prepared with a large wallet. Samsung stock price is $1,210 per share.

And remember, a dividend is coming at the end of 2012.

duracell wrote:

And remember, a dividend is coming at the end of 2012.

The dividend is great, problem with hardware companies issuing dividends is the story only work when cash flows are positive. otherwise it just drains capital from the balance sheet.

gn1tmac wrote: The dividend is great, problem with hardware companies issuing dividends is the story only work when cash flows are positive. otherwise it just drains capital from the balance sheet.

Dividends lead to investors investing more money in a company. Failure to pay dividends drains investment capital from the balance sheet.

I guess "fairly consistent" and "relatively constant" can mean whatever you want, depending on your vantage point.Your own relatively constant data actually shows significant fluctuations between values of 11 and 21 (i.e. almost double). Without having to cherry pick the dates, here's your data on an end of year basis:Dec. 31, 2008: 11.35Dec. 31, 2009: 20.56Dec. 31, 2010: 18.07Dec. 31, 2011: 11.53Sep. 14, 2012: 16.25So in 2009, the P/E ratio nearly doubled. That is, assuming flat earnings, the stock price nearly doubled.In 2011, the P/E nearly halfed.In 2012, the stock price is climbing 1.5x faster than the earnings.Even supposing the actual earnings have doubled, like you suggest, the stock price seems only loosely correlated to the earnings, even during the period you described as relatively constant.

AAPL wrote:

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/pe_ratio

The AAPL P/E ratio has been fairly consistent since 2009. It appears that the "faith and fear" has remained relatively constant - it's just Apple's actual earnings that have more than doubled.

rekrunner wrote:

I guess "fairly consistent" and "relatively constant" can mean whatever you want, depending on your vantage point.

Your own relatively constant data actually shows significant fluctuations between values of 11 and 21 (i.e. almost double). Without having to cherry pick the dates, here's your data on an end of year basis:

Dec. 31, 2008: 11.35

Dec. 31, 2009: 20.56

Dec. 31, 2010: 18.07

Dec. 31, 2011: 11.53

Sep. 14, 2012: 16.25

So in 2009, the P/E ratio nearly doubled. That is, assuming flat earnings, the stock price nearly doubled.

In 2011, the P/E nearly halfed.

In 2012, the stock price is climbing 1.5x faster than the earnings.

Even supposing the actual earnings have doubled, like you suggest, the stock price seems only loosely correlated to the earnings, even during the period you described as relatively constant.

In Dec. 31, 2007 AAPL had a PE of 43.53. AAPL is clearly regressing towards a mean in the range of 16 for the PE.

To give some more perspective of how relatively constant AAPL's PE has been since 2007, take a look at Amazon's PE.

It was in the 50s up until 2011, and now sky rocketed into the 300s. This is an example of a stock driven by speculation. Now go back and look at the AAPL PE. This is a mature stock with a relatively constant PE, driven by earnings.

rekrunner wrote:

I guess "fairly consistent" and "relatively constant" can mean whatever you want, depending on your vantage point.

Your own relatively constant data actually shows significant fluctuations between values of 11 and 21 (i.e. almost double). Without having to cherry pick the dates, here's your data on an end of year basis:

Dec. 31, 2008: 11.35

Dec. 31, 2009: 20.56

Dec. 31, 2010: 18.07

Dec. 31, 2011: 11.53

Sep. 14, 2012: 16.25

So in 2009, the P/E ratio nearly doubled. That is, assuming flat earnings, the stock price nearly doubled.

In 2011, the P/E nearly halfed.

In 2012, the stock price is climbing 1.5x faster than the earnings.

Even supposing the actual earnings have doubled, like you suggest, the stock price seems only loosely correlated to the earnings, even during the period you described as relatively constant.

In Dec. 31, 2007 AAPL had a PE of 43.53. AAPL is clearly regressing towards a mean in the range of 16 for the PE.

To give some more perspective of how relatively constant AAPL's PE has been since 2007, take a look at Amazon's PE.

It was in the 50s up until 2011, and now sky rocketed into the 300s. This is an example of a stock driven by speculation. Now go back and look at the AAPL PE. This is a mature stock with a relatively constant PE, driven by earnings.