Or filter by symbol:
KenC's Comments Stream Stats
- 151 Comments, 7
, 1 
- Total Comment Stream rating - = 6
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Smart Phone Wars: iPhone vs. Blackberry vs. ...Android?
As for smartphones, if you mean to say that the iPhone which is only officially available in a handful of countries "has failed to make impact outside of the us", clearly you are on drugs. People are buying the phone, though unofficially supported, in droves. And, can you tell us which smart phones available elsewhere are "5 years ahead"? You mean the Nokia "tube"?
As for e chang's comment on Android, yes, it's a no-brainer. If Android is any good, mfrs will be attracted. I mean it's FREE! No Win Mobile tax. However, the key for mfrs is whether Android can differentiate their product offerings. If they cannot, then Android will only drive their phones to commodity status.
Can Apple's Resistance to Flash Content Last?
And, if you put flash on a mobile device, that has barely no internet presence(Win mobile devices as measured by In-Stat), then how is anyone going to ever use it?
Lastly, Steve Jobs has stressed the usability of the iPhone. That's the secret sauce. That's why iPhone internet usage already exceeds that of all Win Mobile devices combined after 10 years of being on the market. Putting Flash on an iPhone will make the iPhone unbearably slow, besides being a battery hog. How does that help usability? It doesn't. The reasons why Flash is not on the iPhone is so obvious, it amazes me that the media just parrot the PR-speak of MS.
The bigger story is why is MS adding Flash, when they are developing Silverlight, a Flash-competitor? Is it really choice, or is it desperation?
It's sort of like the PR-spin MS put out about Xbox 360 game consoles coming in 3rd in sales both in January and February. They said it was supply-constrained. Did any analyst check to see if that were actually true? I mean, go to the stores. Do you see "sold out" signs where Xbox inventory should be sitting? I don't. I see lots of Xbox consoles waiting to be sold. There's no supply constraint. It's MS PR-spin, because they stuffed the Channel in Xmas and retailers have to move them off the shelves before MS can ship more. That's why the numbers are down, but are any analysts doing any store checks? Beuller? Beuller?
Is Blu-Ray Actually Microsoft's Victory?
Apple's AT&T Deal Is Costly
Apple's AT&T Deal Is Costly
In addition, Apple is not like other mfrs who need the subsidy from the wireless carrier to turn a profit on a phone. Apple is making a profit on each and every phone it sells, locked or unlocked. In other words, there's no downside to additional phones being sold, except in analysts' and bloggers' minds.
Now, in the very same article, you damn Apple for not collecting revenue on tons of unlocked phones, and also damn Apple for not selling thru every carrier. Logic says, that both issues cannot be true at the same time. If so many phones are being unlocked to use on other carriers, where's the impediment from not selling on every carrier?
As for the gPhone, you do know that Google has constantly stated that no such phone exists or is being planned? And, Google's actions speak louder than bloggers' words. Google has constantly talked about how the iPhone has been an eyeopener for them in terms of mobile websearch. Google's OHA is intended to expand the mobile websearch market, downward, and not necessarily compete with the iPhone in the upper end of the market. Whatever.
You do realize that Apple's approach had little to do with hubris and more to do with their being a new entrant in the market, where carriers dictated terms and features on handsets. In order to break this mindset, Apple had to give AT&T an exclusive, and they got some groundbreaking terms, like a share of the carrier revenue, and visual voicemail, and their portal being the gateway and not AT&T. Honestly, I don't know where you bloggers get your ideas. Perhaps, it's the hubris of trying to pat yourself on the back.
I sold my Apple shares at $197.50 and $201.50, after getting in at $86, last Feb. I guess I should pat myself on the back too!
Cisco and Apple About to Enter Your Living Room?
A Closer Look at Apple Stock
Apple's Deferred Revenues Revisited: This Was a Blow-Out Quarter
And, to the point most are concerned with, Apple is capitalizing expenses like R&D as they incur, while deferring COGS with revenues. Is there a deferred COGS number in the 10Q?
Third, I'd point out why the first point is so important. Some people, like myself, went into an Apple Store over Xmas to choose a new iPod. That choice became one between a Classic, a Touch or an iPhone. Remember Steve Jobs called the iPhone the "best iPod ever". I bought the iPhone, and put my old nano in the drawer. The difference being if I had bought a Touch or a Classic, all of the revenue for those purchases would have hit Apple's top line. With the iPhone, only a fraction, 1/8th, of the money I spent hit the top line. My little decision on my iPod replacement, is treated quite differently by Apple's financial report. How many other people consolidated their iPod purchase with a cell phone purchase? That's why the deferred figure is important in truly comparing Apples to Apples. Apple had a blowout quarter and no one seems to know it.
Take Advantage of Apple's Q2 Guidance Misdirection
The Company recognizes the associated revenue and COGS on a straight-line basis over the currently estimated 24-month economic lives of these products with any loss recognized at the time of sale. Costs incurred by the Company for engineering, sales, marketing and warranty are expensed as incurred.
Blame it on iPod's Near Zero Growth
What's interesting is that while the price of an iPhone vs a Touch or Classic is not that far different, Apple probably recognizes $250 less revenue, in the quarter of sale, if a buyer chooses an iPhone over a Touch or Classic, due to the way revenue is recognized. It's possible that $500Million less revenue was recognized in this quarter, if all 2Million domestic iPhones were sold instead of Touchs or Classics. That's a big number.
Apple's Extra Billion in Deferred Revenues
Apple Should Increasingly Dominate Key CE Markets
Why Does Apple Always Give Low Guidance? Is this a Rhetorical Question?
The guidance was 29.3% higher in revs from the previous year. Did I say HIGHER?
If Apple guides, consistently, the market should internalize that knowledge and adjust accordingly. There should be no opportunity for an option strike manipulation. The point is that the guidance is consistently conservative. If it was arbitrary high one quarter and low another, then you could make an argument for manipulation, but Apple is consistently conservative. Even last quarter was conservative from Apple's position. Who cares what the analysts have cooked up. Apple beat its guidance again. There's no conspiracy here.
Controversial Morning for Apple
I saw Orange's 70k December number which seemed low, but I suspect UK figs are much higher. Germany, I don't think anyone has a clue yet.
Waiting for Dell's iPod Moment
I think basing your premise on the assumption that MS has made a real "decisive breakout" is the weakest part of your argument. Vista and Xbox earnings need to show they are sustainable. And, Google is just eating their breakfast, lunch and dinner in online advertising search.