Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pyslent who wrote (169034)	4/29/2014 11:32:11 AM
From: Moonray	2 Recommendations Recommended By HerbVic Ryan Bartholomew Respond to of 213176

Deep Dive Into Apple's Gross Margins And What It Means Going Forward Starting in 2009 Apple's gross margin has consistently been above 40%Apple launched the first iPhone in 2007 and the company's gross margin was 34.9% that year. In fiscal 2009 the iPhone 3GS was launched, and iPhones were 16% of revenue for the year and gross margin was 40.5%. As iPhones became a higher percent of revenue gross margins moved up to 40.8% in fiscal 2010 (iPhones 39% of revenue), 42.0% in fiscal 2011 (iPhones at 43%) and peaked in fiscal 2012 at 45.6% (iPhones at 50%). More at: seekingalpha.com o~~~ O

To: pyslent who wrote (169034)	4/29/2014 12:17:13 PM
From: Ryan Bartholomew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

There would still profit left after your proposed 30% price cut, but even if unit sales doubled, profits would drop. Before adding in incremental gains in ad, app, media, and accessory profits, yes. But after? As for ancillary revenue, I'd like to see your math. Getting too detailed with the math is a bit silly, as there are so many possible forms a partnership and more open device could take that focusing on one wouldn't be meaningful. But you're being fair in requesting at least a basic example of how it could work. I don't have ready access to the latest #s (you seem more on top of it), and I'm not inclined (at least not right now) to format a business case scenario on it. But let me point you to my thinking and maybe you'll be inclined to run the #s. Yes, the ad growth is a huge factor. To look at that part, pull up Google's financials and see what the mobile revenue growth trend is. As for $10/year/user as a current base for Google, you have to define precisely which sources you're counting. Purely ad revenue coming from clicked mobile ads? Including app revenue? What about about services? And longer tail revenue from getting a user more locked into the "ecosystem" (via a Google account or otherwise)? Remember - any form of partnership would allow Apple to monetize all of these same areas to varying degrees, more so than they are doing now. And the split wouldn't be 50/50. With Apple's volume, they'd be able to negotiate a lot more favorable split.

To: pyslent who wrote (169034)	4/29/2014 12:36:41 PM
From: Doren	Respond to of 213176

> hardware profits need not drop to zero Ryan, all I can say about this is... I'd rather that Apple charged me MORE. : v 0 For example. The Nano 6 rose in price on Amazon after Apple discontinued it. Why? Because the hardware is killer. Its bitchen. The new Nanos are not the same. Too big. The software though... sucks eggs. Worst interface Apple put out since pre-Mac computers. I wish they would have put more money into the interface, got it right and charged me an extra $20. Same with the iMacs. Not having an optical disk on board might be a deal breaker for me. My iMac mouse also sucks, THAT might be a deal breaker for me. Charge an extra $120 Apple and you have me. Products that work 90% suck. I want closer to 100% and I'm willing to pay more, because my time is money. Get the friggin interfaces, and windows managers right, charge me a little more.