Macworld Forums: Analysis: Apple's best-ever quarter is no disappointment - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Analysis: Apple's best-ever quarter is no disappointment here

All I know is that I took advantage of a buying opportunity today. The market always overreacts one way or the other. Had they read the numbers like rational people, I probably would have sold some and re-bought a few days letter when it settled down. But, if they (the market) want to be dorks, I have no problems making a profit from it.

You can make numbers look like good numbers or bad. The fact is Apple is still in single digit market share on the computer front. I think most would agree that going to Intel chips and advancing the OS would bring more PC user's to Apple Mac's. But for the most part this has not happened. In fact Apple has dropped to number 4 in the computer market.
Dell for instance has about 30% market share. The iPods sales are starting to level off, the iPhone has not done as well over sea's as Apple would have hoped. Apple really needs to expand their computers into the sub $1000 market. The Mac Mini is not enough to attract lower income user's to Apple. Let me tell you, that's a lot of PC user's that are untapped by Apple. That could easily put Apple in double digit market share. Introducing a $1800 Niche laptop when the economy is stressing is stupid. You are not going to maintain market share by doing that!
Not everyone can afford a $1200 desktop or the same in a Laptop.
People can buy a good Dell for $500. That's a big deal!

John_Scott said:

I disagree. The reason Apple is doing so well and continues to have a highly loyal base is because Apple doesn't make piece of crap computers like the $500 Dells you can buy. Apple's hardware and software is top quality and you pay a bit of a price premium for that. To many people, the benefits are well worth the extra cost.

On the other hand, I agree that the Macbook Air may not have been the ideal product to introduce as the US heads into a recession. We'll see.

John_Scott said:

Oh, this again. Apple does not care. They want to preserve the company. I am reading a book called "The Four-Hour Work Week" and one of the insights in the book is why so many companies do not want to get caught in the low price trap. A passage from the book:

>The bulk of companies set pricing in the midrange...Pricing low is shortsighted, because someone else is always willing to sacrifice more profit margin and drive you bankrupt. Besides perceived value, there are three main benefits to creating a premium, high-end image and charging more than the competition:
>1. Higher pricing means that we can sell fewer units - and manage fewer customers...it's faster.
>2. Higher pricing attracts lower-maintenance customers (better credit, fewer complaints/questions, fewer returns etc.) This is HUGE.
>3. Higher pricing also creates higher profit margins. It's safer.

Now, I have never worked at Apple and I don't know what goes on in there but I bet they are following this philosophy, that managing high volumes of cheapskates can be a great drag on a business, unless you're Walmart and that is all your company is about.

You mention Dell. Look what Dell is doing: Trying to create upscale lines like XPS to save their struggling business.

I'm waiting for someone to start referring to Apple as "beleaguered". Again.

For at least fifteen years, there's been a steady pattern: Apple announces record profits, and the stock price tanks. It almost seems like someone loves to short the stock.

Considering the importance for the overall market health that was being placed on Apple's results, I would hope there would be some sort of legal consequences for this type of journalism.

Ouch my pocketbook hurts. Well not exactly I bought stock 6 or 7 years ago when it was at $10, but still.
Apple was over priced at $200 plain and simple. AT that price it's nearly a $200 bil company and once you start to get that big there's not much room to go up.
The iPod is getting more and more competition too.
Good news is they are selling more Macs and they have the iPhone and iPod Touch as very forward ahead of the competition products.
Still I definitely think growth is going to slow and the stock will probably never hit $200 again at least for a few years.
Apple's strength of controlling everything is also it's weakness.

KBCraig said:

That's got nothing to do with Apple.
"Buy on the rumor, sell on the news" is one of the most popular maxims in stock trading.

trip1ex said:

Apple was plainly underpriced at $200. At $139, it's outrageously underpriced.

trip1ex said:

Such as? Where is the competition to the Touch?

The numbers are numbers and speak for themselves. As the author pointed out, one can spin it in different ways (eg. CNBC). True, Apple is still in single digit market share of new computer sales, but for over 2 years Apple has been growing at a double digit rate. Dell on the other hand has been losing market share to HP, Gateway and others. True, Apple is number 4 in market share, but you're absolutely incorrect -- Apple has moved up to number 4. Also, seems you did not pay attention to Apple's release. iPod sales for the 1st quarter (typically the biggest due to the Christmas holiday) was it's best ever. The growth, on the other hand is slowing due to saturation. Is there anyone that doesn't have an iPod or a music player? Apple is not a commodity computer company - no beige boxes, not every configuration that anyone wants, thus no mid-tower. The MacBook Air isn't really a sub-notebook because Apple wouldn't compromise on the keyboard, so they just made it thinner. Finally, your comment that "people can buy a good Dell for $500" isn't is straightforward as you think. Clearly major corporations are balking at moving to Vista - is the $500 Dell still a good deal if you can only get it with Vista?

[quote name='John_Scott']
You can make numbers look like good numbers or bad. The fact is Apple is still in single digit market share on the computer front. I think most would agree that going to Intel chips and advancing the OS would bring more PC user's to Apple Mac's. But for the most part this has not happened. In fact Apple has dropped to number 4 in the computer market.
Dell for instance has about 30% market share. The iPods sales are starting to level off, the iPhone has not done as well over sea's as Apple would have hoped. Apple really needs to expand their computers into the sub $1000 market. The Mac Mini is not enough to attract lower income user's to Apple. Let me tell you, that's a lot of PC user's that are untapped by Apple. That could easily put Apple in double digit market share. Introducing a $1800 Niche laptop when the economy is stressing is stupid. You are not going to maintain market share by doing that!
Not everyone can afford a $1200 desktop or the same in a Laptop.
People can buy a good Dell for $500. That's a big deal!

The whole fiasco is enough to make you think there was some kind malice involved, and it's interesting to note that while Apple produces tangible, useful things, CNBC produces hot gas.

Quote

Perhaps in features, but apparently not in other areas, or the free market would reward the Zune with sales.
Unless a great number of investors have great confidence in Microsoft's ability to sell the Zune, I doubt it's a valid reason for the sell-off.

>Plus, Amazon's entry into the DRM-free music market expands options.
Irrelevant. The iTunes Store does not determine the success or failure of the iPod line. More places to buy music that will play on an iPod, in fact, only increases the likelihood that someone will buy an iPod (or other music player, but the odds favor an iPod purchase).

Please remember, that CNBC is owned by NBC/Universal. NBC/Universal had a dispute with Apple and the sale of NBC television shows on iTunes and is now in competition with Apple over content delivery. Although none of us can be certain that NBC/Universal's situation has or has not influenced the reporting on CNBC, it is difficult to find anyone who has negatively reported AAPL's earnings that is not associated with an NBC/Universal property.