Post by: Paddy on June 19, 2008, 11:06:19 PM
All told, Apple is getting the same amount for the new 3G phones as it did for the old ones - only now it's all upfront. Guess that news helped the stock price jump today! Oh, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT falling!
In other iPhone news, PriceGrabber did a survey of over 3000 cellphone users and found that 42% of them are considering getting an iPhone 3G:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/arch...g_an_iphone_3g/
Only 4% of those surveyed currently own an iPhone.
Post by: sandbox on June 20, 2008, 02:49:55 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jun 19 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/arch..._for_iphone_3g/
All told, Apple is getting the same amount for the new 3G phones as it did for the old ones - only now it's all upfront. Guess that news helped the stock price jump today! Oh, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT falling!
In other iPhone news, PriceGrabber did a survey of over 3000 cellphone users and found that 42% of them are considering getting an iPhone 3G:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/arch...g_an_iphone_3g/
Only 4% of those surveyed currently own an iPhone.
All told, Apple is getting the same amount for the new 3G phones as it did for the old ones - only now it's all upfront. Guess that news helped the stock price jump today! Oh, Chicken Little, the sky is NOT falling!
In other iPhone news, PriceGrabber did a survey of over 3000 cellphone users and found that 42% of them are considering getting an iPhone 3G:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/arch...g_an_iphone_3g/
Only 4% of those surveyed currently own an iPhone.
Chicken Little, the sky is NOT falling! rolleyes.gif
No but the dollar has, so if you compare new Apple to old Apple you will see that $186.00 or whatever isn't what it used to be. In december the stock peaked at close to $200, 6 months later is down by 7-8% so in six months an investor has managed to make 0 and loose 7% if they were to get out now. The value of the dollar has also decreased 10% +-so add that loss as well. Now were talking about a loss of 17% +- in 6 months.
also the increase in apple's value last year was in part due to the 11% loss in the US currency and the false correction that the Street was making bringing more and more people to invest in Apple and then take a heavy loss in January.
On the contrary, Apple has not been a good investment and if they are forced to subsidize their products today they probably are not estimating a good forcast in the near future.
Post by: Paddy on June 20, 2008, 10:24:03 AM
As for Apple being a good investment or not, not if you bought when the stock was at its peak on Dec. 28, 2007, but if you bought any time prior to 2007 or even in February's trough, you're doing rather well. The relative worth of the US dollar in foreign currency makes little difference to the average individual investor - he/she is dealing in USD period. The foreign investor might indeed have lost more. If you start claiming that the drop in the US dollar makes Apple a bad investment, then the same goes for ANY US company - and that's true only for foreign investors who bought when the dollar was high relative to their own currency AND the stock price was high.
On Dec. 31, 2004, AAPL was at 32.20 - it went on to split two for one a few weeks later and continued to climb. The Euro was at $1.35. Today it's $1.56. Methinks those who invested in Apple have done rather well - no matter where they live.
Post by: krissel on June 21, 2008, 10:44:49 PM
QUOTE
We love our gadgets.
That's the conclusion of a new poll commissioned by Forbes.com and conducted by social network LinkedIn among its members.
Nearly half of those polled this week about their favorite electronics said they would like an iPhone as a gift, while 26% selected Apple's (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) lightweight MacBook Air. A GPS navigation system and Amazon.com's (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ) Kindle e-book garnered fewer votes, 11% and 3%, respectively.
All told, LinkedIn launched four polls Tuesday on its site that attracted between 600 and 1,100 responses from members.
That's the conclusion of a new poll commissioned by Forbes.com and conducted by social network LinkedIn among its members.
Nearly half of those polled this week about their favorite electronics said they would like an iPhone as a gift, while 26% selected Apple's (nasdaq: AAPL - news - people ) lightweight MacBook Air. A GPS navigation system and Amazon.com's (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ) Kindle e-book garnered fewer votes, 11% and 3%, respectively.
All told, LinkedIn launched four polls Tuesday on its site that attracted between 600 and 1,100 responses from members.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/20/linkedin-...artner=yahootix
People shouldn't focus on the iPhone as Apple's main product. There is a very large potential in the Mac sales of the future, beyond the present weakness in the economy.
Post by: sandbox on June 23, 2008, 01:34:55 AM
Apple gets a healthy portion of revenue from the at&t service. If at&t is subsidizing the iPhone, Apple is paying a portion from that revenue stream, not to mention any deal that they may have made for the promotional campaign. There is no incentive for at&t to subsidize an iPhone over another full service unit, say a Blackberry or a Nokia if the margins are the same. At&t didn't offer this in a vacuum, they don't need to sell iPhones… Apple does, at&t has options and can profit just as much from any other smartphone and probably more, given the gouge Apple takes from their plan stream.
If you got out of retail in December, as I did, and put your money in anything that didn't loose since then, you would be ahead of the game. The small oil wells in N. Dakota are doing fine, plutonium and solar energy hardware. Steal was solid for 6 months, anything to do with moving liquids, like pipes, copper, pumps, faucets.
Have a look at the performance of this little domestic number http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/ENER.aspx I luv alt. energy stocks!
here's a good window into alt. energy and tweaking stuff http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy.aspx
Post by: krissel on June 23, 2008, 02:33:49 AM
http://seekingalpha.com/article/82183-the-...ne?source=yahoo
Post by: Gregg on June 23, 2008, 07:49:08 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jun 19 2008, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
All told, Apple is getting the same amount for the new 3G phones as it did for the old ones - only now it's all upfront.
And besides that, the consumer is actually paying more! The monthly charge is higher, and you can add more bells and whistles for even more money. This is according to a newspaper story I read yesterday.
Post by: Paddy on June 23, 2008, 09:14:17 AM
Interesting article, Kris. I would wonder if the same Sarbonne-Oxley rule will apply to the 3G phones since Apple is no longer receiving a piece of the subscription pie? My understanding was that the only reason they had to apply the subscription method of accounting in the first place was because they were getting a piece of the AT&T subscription - which is not a "normal" model for cell phone manufacturers from my understanding.
Post by: Gregg on June 23, 2008, 03:18:11 PM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 23, 2008, 04:02:44 PM
But what do I know?! 
Post by: sandbox on June 25, 2008, 02:21:08 AM
QUOTE(Paddy @ Jun 23 2008, 09:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
SB,... As for incentive - there's plenty of incentive to sell the cell phone that everybody wants!!
If they want it so bad why does at&t need to pay them to purchase it? They should, once again, be standing inline around the corner paying scalpers 100-200 $ over retail to get one, just as they did when they were introduced.
If you have a captive audience, as at&t does, where the iPhone can't be used legally on any-other network, so the option of going to a competitor is not a concern, why give customer 300 + dollars when they have no choice?
There is an agreement or quota that is built-in the contract that has inspired this activity, this sort of a cost shift doesn't happen in a vacuum. I can't remember what apple gets from at&t ... plan...10-20%, so if their % of the revenue is subtracted from the gross then apple wouldn't pay their share but one would hardly expected that such an agreement would ever be struck. Apple's kick back is most likely received after the costs are accounted for, which means that they would share in the subsidy. You give apple the full retail amount, (unlikely) then you short them on the revenue plan side, at&t writes off the subsidy and apple writes off the lost revenue stream later. In the mean time, Apple sales look like they're increasing now, drawing people in, then at the end of the year the projections aren't met and the investors take a hit. Sounds like another Christmas Present to me.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 25, 2008, 10:00:10 AM
QUOTE
You give apple the full retail amount, (unlikely) then you short them on the revenue plan side, at&t writes off the subsidy and apple writes off the lost revenue stream later.
I believe that's exactly what the article states. Actually, AT&T is supposedly paying more than retail and Apple will not be losing much from any loss of 'kickbacks.' AT&T Investors, on the other hand, don't seem to be impressed with AT&Ts logic, countering that the extra immediate expense will not be returned in future service fees. Thus AT&T stock went down after the announcement. I tend not to put too much credibility in 'buyers/sellers' since they are mostly 'speculators' not businessmen ( except, of course, you, Paddy and other TS investors! 
). And, IMHO, they are usually only interested in short term profits. But I'm probably just too conservative! I don't think you'll see any lines 'around the block' until it actually becomes physically available. At least I don't see any point in sitting on a sidewalk for days/weeks. YMMV.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on June 25, 2008, 04:39:08 PM