SAN FRANCISCO—Apple Inc.'s stock price declined nearly 10 percent in after hours trading Wednesday (Jan. 23) after the firm projected sales would decline by more than 20 percent sequentially in the current quarter.
Apple (Cupertino, Calif.) reported its highest ever quarterly sales, $54.5 billion, for the quarter ended Dec. 29. Even so, sales were slightly below consensus analysts' expectations.
"No technology company has ever reported these kind of results," said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, in a conference call with analysts following the financial report. "Apple is in one of the most prolific periods of innovation in new products in its history."
But Apple's stock price sank to $463.49 in after hours trading after closing at $514.01 earlier in the day, prior to the quarterly report.
Apple sold a record 47.8 million iPhones in the quarter, up 78 percent from the previous quarter and up 30 percent from the year-ago quarter. The company sold 22.9 million iPads, up from 15.4 million in the year-ago quarter. Mac sales declined to 4.1 million, down from 5.2 million in the year ago quarter, while iPod sales declined to 12.7 million compared to 15.4 million in the year-ago quarter, Apple said.
Paul McWilliams, editor of technology investment newsletter Next Inning Technology Research, was disappointed by Apple's quarterly report and the presentation by executives that followed. In a report circulated late Wednesday, McWilliams said he planned to sell his Apple shares in the near future after being "an Apple bull" for nearly 10 years.
"Apple was built on vision, innovation and a near perfect execution of design that delivered products that redefined some markets, and in other cases (many other cases) created entirely new markets," McWilliams wrote. "Today I view Apple as a huge ship that lacks not only a rudder, but also the forward vision needed to set the direction of the rudder."
I would say the BOM argument is misdirected. The hardware, direct manufacturing labor, and development costs for Apple products are very considerable. Their innovation is legendary. While we consumers sometimes buy products for which the (discarded) packaging and advertising cost is probably comparable to the product cost, Apple products deliver a lot for the money.
Well put ... I'll admit Apple's marketing (propeganda?) machine has done them well over the years. The general public (aka the clueless) have fawned over the rhetoric that's spewed to them in a shiny & glossy wrapper. They blindly accept the doctrine as gospel and subsequently, likely believe that everything they read on the internet is true.
Streaming tv of any kind relies of people's ignorance to accept a poorer quality signal for the sake of convenience ... much like mp3s did for the audio industry. I'm not going to be jumping on that bandwagon anytime soon, but innovation is born out of convenience and the general population is inherently lazy as a whole.
Conclusion: I hate to admit it, but itv will likely take off
Respect should be earned based on the overall behavior but not just a narrow scope. By the criteria mentioned in your comment, a few other companies should earn more of your respect!
At the end of the day, ixxx are all commodities. In the history of mankind, when was the last time when commodities warrant followings that are so biased? I hope people get wise and follow the logics. After all, Apple is not Gucci, LV, nor Hermes!
As with all very large tech companies, the point has come to see Apple as more of a "value stock" than a "growth stock". No large company can maintain the kind of growth Apple has seen over the past several years. Apple will likely follow a trajectory similar to that of Microsoft. But that assesment was already "baked in" to the stock price even before the recent nosedive. Therefore, it seems to me, the market has over reacted and it has under valued Apple stock at this point. I don't know why the market seems to want to punish any company that starts to pay a dividend.
The ipod was way ahead of it's times in the late 90s. Minimalistic design, futuristic materials. High Def screen.
Then in the 00's, we saw evolved products from this principle: ipad, iphone. With same basic design looks.
Now in the teen years, this design look is wearing old. There is no criticism or analysis to be made to Apple. They had their moment, and now the other companies are catching up.
Apple is surely a successful commercial establishment, but Apple is not a good citizen to the nation? Did they pay its tax in a faithful manner, given that it first championed the idea of tax harbor. Of the more than US$130b in the bank, what amount of tax has Apple paid? Apple has probably become the role model to most big corporations in US (and outside too) who want to avoid paying their due. Unlike Bill Gates, Apple and its top brass didn't really do much to help the needy and the poor. Making money and socially responsible should be what make a great company!
Please stop over-rate or over-hype what Apple can do to a television. The strength of Apple means that the competition are weak and not up to the task. I do believe that the world has changed, so are Apple's competitors. Consumers are typically blind-sighted and preferred to be led by hype and perception mostly.
Please be reminded that the definition of fool is: willing to give up $1 for much less than $1 worth of goods. You are correct with "more to great products than the BOM cost". Quite often the "more" is psychological than something with substance. For instance, Hermes-brand carry-on is physically not strongly built but command 100x of the very robust one of Kirkland brand. In terms of technical specification, even iPhone5 is inferior to most of the followings: Xperia Z, Lumia 920, HTC Butterfly. Yet, in Q4 last year, 84% of the smartphones sold by AT&T are the iPhones, iPhones doubled its sales $ in China. By the definition, many, if not most, of the takers of iPhones in Q4CY2012 seem to fit the definition, don't they?
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.