Print 52 comment(s) - last by Just Tom.. on Nov 11 at 9:55 AM

Apple's stock is falling as well

Apple managed to beat and meet Wall Street's expectations when it comes to fiscal 2013 fourth quarter revenue and iPhone sales respectively, but the tech giant sees a stronger holiday season ahead. 

For the fiscal 2013 fourth quarter ended September 28, Apple reported revenue of $37.5 billion, beating analyst expectations of $36.8 billion. Net profit came in at $7.5 billion ($8.26 per share), which beat expectations of $7.94 per share. In the year-ago quarter, revenue sat at $36 billion and net profit was $8.2 billion. Gross margin was 37 percent compared to 40 percent in the year-ago quarter.

A big question has been the number of iPhones sold, since this was the first iPhone launch that included two versions: the iPhone 5S and the iPhone 5C. Apple said it sold 33.8 million iPhones for the quarter, which beat analyst expectations of 31 million. It's not yet clear how many of those were 5S' and 5Cs, but it definitely beat the year-ago quarter's 26.9 million iPhone sales. 

The iPad didn't quite meet expectations with 14.1 million sold (Wall Street predicted 14.5 million). Apple sold 14 million in the year-ago quarter. 

According to Business Insider, the average selling price (ASP) for the iPhone and iPad is falling, meaning lower profit per unit sold. IPhone ASP is $577, down from $581 in the June quarter and $613 in the March quarter while the iPad's ASP is $439.

Macs fell in line with analyst estimates with 4.6 million sold for the quarter, but dropped from 4.9 million sold in the year-ago quarter. 

Looking ahead at the holiday quarter, Apple predicts revenue of $55 billion to $58 billion compared to analyst estimates of $55.65 billion, and gross margin of 36.5 to 37.5 percent.

Apple's stock fell as much as 3.85 percent in after hours trading, and was down 2.35 percent 20 minutes after the earnings report was released. 

“We’re pleased to report a strong finish to an amazing year with record fourth quarter revenue, including sales of almost 34 million iPhones,” said Tim Cook, Apple CEO. "We’re excited to go into the holidays with our new iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s, iOS 7, the new iPad mini with Retina Display and the incredibly thin and light iPad Air, new MacBook Pros, the radical new Mac Pro, OS X Mavericks and the next generation iWork and iLife apps for OS X and iOS.” 

As Cook said, Apple has a slew of new products that it hopes to sell throughout the holiday season. It launched the flagship iPhone 5S and "budget" iPhone 5C in September, which are priced starting at $650 and $550 respectively without subsidized pricing. Many analysts have worried that Apple hasn't priced its supposed budget phone low enough to catch on in markets like China, where there is no subsidized pricing. Many consumers have opted to pay the extra $100 to have the flagship model instead of the low-end iPhone, leading to a cut in 5C orders and a boost in 5S orders for the holiday season. 

Apple also introduced the new iPad Air and iPad mini with Retina Display this month starting at $499 and $399 respectively. 

Source: Apple

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Keep it Real
By t_sandman on 10/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: Keep it Real
By w8gaming on 10/28/2013 7:41:22 PM , Rating: 4
While Apple is making a lot of money today, it is the foundations that the company is built on that is worrisome. The sole income for Apple remains selling new iPhone and iPad, which is no doubt selling well today. However, unlike other companies such as Samsung, which has manufacturing to fall back on, Apple does nothing except to subcontract to other companies to assemble their two flagship devices. With all this money on hand and they did nothing. What if the devices lost their appeal suddenly, what is going to happen to a company that rely on two devices on their profit? It will get slaughtered in the market that is what.

RE: Keep it Real
By Reclaimer77 on 10/28/2013 7:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Their web services are certainly nothing to fall back on.

RE: Keep it Real
By purerice on 10/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: Keep it Real
By t_sandman on 10/28/2013 8:28:12 PM , Rating: 3

The sole income for Apple remains selling new iPhone and iPad, which is no doubt selling well today.

Not quite, the iPhone and iPad are their largest source of revenue, but they still make money from iTunes and laptops and desktops. Also, Apple has been in existence since the 70's using this same business model.

Samsung is well diversified but Samsung made 6+ Billion profit from there mobile electronics division and 4+ Billion from there other divisions. So the mobile electronics division for both companies is vital to the huge profits both companies achieve.

Having manufacturing can be both a blessing and a curse. If you have followed any of the stories about AMD and there issues with owning there own chip fabrication, you can see that manufacturing can bleed a company. You see this in the car industry, textile industry, and the list goes on and on. In manufacturing, you better sell a boat load of parts like Intel to make it worth while or you have to have lots of customers like TSMC or Samsung to generate parts for those companies to make manufacturing worth while. Since Apple is slowly migrating there chip production from Samsung, it will be interesting to see if Samsung can stay as profitable from their manufacturing division without Apple.

I don't think either company is in danger of bankruptcy or becoming irrelevant.

RE: Keep it Real
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 8:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
Selling laptops and desktops led them to a bailout by Microsoft. Their iTunes business was built without competition, it now faces competitors Netflix, Amazon, and others.

AMD was at its prime when it owned its own fabs. It grained over 30% of the market from Intel when it owned its on fabs. Once it spun off to GlobalFoundries it saw its credit downrated and its stock plummet.

All of your assertions are incorrect.

Samsung build ships and sells life insurance. They have little to do with this discussion. They certainly won't cease to exist when Apple stops using them to build their phones.

RE: Keep it Real
By Samus on 10/28/2013 8:56:40 PM , Rating: 3
These iNigga's gotta diversify their bonds!


RE: Keep it Real
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 9:15:43 PM , Rating: 2
"In general.. Clarity is threatening. People can't bear clarity. They want you to weasel around and obscure.. and if you're clear, if you stand up and and say clearly what you think, and what you're saying... then they will think you are being threatening, aggressive, strident, shrill, and so on." -- Richard Dawkins

RE: Keep it Real
By Just Tom on 11/11/2013 9:55:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Survey says..."
- Richard Dawson

RE: Keep it Real
By testbug00 on 10/28/2013 11:50:08 PM , Rating: 2
Do you understand anything about how expensive fabs are to make/maintain, and how that cost has been rising drastically?

Probably not.

Also you might want to double check talking about AMD's stock (not sure about credit, although that probably had more to do with buying ATI) drop, because your facts aren't true.

RE: Keep it Real
By t_sandman on 10/29/2013 9:10:28 AM , Rating: 4
It appears you have your facts mixed up. AMD gained market share not because they owned a FAB, but because they designed a processor that actually was better than Intel. AMD Athlon ring a bell?

Since that time, AMD struggled mightily trying to keep up with Intel. AMD had to spin off the chip fabrication because they could not keep up with the technological advances of Intel. Intel was able to fabricate and design chips better than AMD. The fabrication of chips became just too expensive for AMD. They were years behind Intel in process node shrinks, there chip design could not keep up with Intel, and the yields on the fabrication of chips was not as good as Intel.

In the end, the fabrication of chips became too costly.

Your 'bailout' comment tends to obscure the fact that Microsoft got licensing agreements and patent privileges for the 150 million investment. A bailout implies giving money to a company. An investment implies Microsoft received a benefit from Apple. Regardless, Apple is still in business and stronger than ever. Sounds like the strategy is working.

Samsung is well diversified in manufacturing. There are many ways to make a business work. IBM spun off PC manufacturing many years ago and is a strong solutions company. I don't see any indicators that Apple cannot continue to be a life style 'design' product company.

RE: Keep it Real
By Kiffberet on 10/29/2013 10:28:19 AM , Rating: 3
AMD only split away from their foundry AFTER they were losing millions every year because Intel were a good generation of CPU ahead.

Manufacturing is only profitable when you get it right. One slip up and you're finished.

Consider Sharp, Philips and now Panasonic with their television manufacturing. All loss making, and they would've pumped billions into each factory.

Apple, just get someone else to make the parts, and demand a certain price. Much less investment, much more profitable.

So, sadly, All of your assertions are incorrect.

RE: Keep it Real
By w8gaming on 10/29/2013 3:27:12 AM , Rating: 2
The current profit made by Apple is mostly due to iPhone and iPad. They used to make lots of money from iPod too but this category of device has been mostly made obsolete by smartphone. Apple will be a minor player in the tech world if iPhone and iPad does not sell. For a company that has a lot of cash, they are not doing much to ensure their company has a future plan beyond these two devices. That's why their stock price does not reach the same height as before, as investors are worried in its future. Even if there are still millions of people favoring iPhone and iPad, eventually such people will slow down the upgrade and there will be a lot less sales from selling new devices. If Apple is trying to grows a service model, they sure are not doing as much as Google or Microsoft.

RE: Keep it Real
By w8gaming on 10/29/2013 4:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oh then I remember, I read it somewhere Apple has a built-in counter for the market saturation problem. Their device is made to be obsolete after a few years and Apple must be banking on repeated sales from their loyal customers. Interesting business strategy. I suppose smartphone is the only gadget in the world which most people don't mind changing frequently. And maybe this strategy would work. Definitely not for me though I could use a phone for years until it breaks completely.

RE: Keep it Real
By t_sandman on 10/29/2013 9:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Their device is made to be obsolete after a few years

Do you know of any device that is made that can be considered 'obsolete proof'?

Every product I know gets old. Technology changes with time. Many people decide that after so many years of x product (phones, cars, TVs) that it is time to upgrade from an older product to a newer product. I think all manufacturers have that goal to create a product that is better than the previous product. If not you don't stay in business very long.

RE: Keep it Real
By retrospooty on 10/29/2013 10:06:39 AM , Rating: 2
True... And it doesn't benefit any manufacturer to make a product that lasts. If you build a smartphone that lasts a decade, you lost a customer for the next decade. There has never been a tech product that isnt bested within a few years. It's worse today than ever and that is a good thing. Next years phones will be even better (all platforms) so more new toys for us. You cant fault any maker for that.

RE: Keep it Real
By Kiffberet on 10/29/2013 10:37:55 AM , Rating: 1
it doesn't benefit any manufacturer to make a product that lasts.

Did you even think before you wrote that post?

Are you going to spend money on the product that has a reputation for lasting, or the one that breaks?

RE: Keep it Real
By retrospooty on 10/29/2013 12:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
"Did you even think before you wrote that post?"

Yes, I did. Did you read the thread you are responding to?

The thread you are responding too isnt about products lasting or breaking as in "defective", its about them lasting as in being obsoleted by newer better products. Duh.

RE: Keep it Real
By t_sandman on 10/29/2013 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
I think the assertion that companies deliberately design a product to be obsolete is incorrect. I think companies design a product to be the best product at the time of release. (Let's keep that statement in perspective. Some companies produce crap to ride the bandwagon of certain technologies, i.e. tablets.) By the very nature of time passing and newer technology becoming available, that is what makes a product obsolete.

If a company made a product that was obsolete the day it was to be released, that would certainly result in that product not being sold.

Companies don't design for obsolescence, they design for today's technology. The fact that tomorrow come's with new technology makes yesterday's product obsolete.

RE: Keep it Real
By retrospooty on 10/29/2013 2:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Totally agreed. If last years products weren't obsoleted by this years products then they aren't doing their job very well. Its not so much "planned obsolescence" as it is progress.

If your new products aren't any better than your product 1-2 years ago you aren't going to last long.

RE: Keep it Real
By Kiffberet on 10/30/2013 8:51:12 AM , Rating: 2

The original post didn't make dum-ass comments like you.

For example:

If you build a smartphone that lasts a decade, you lost a customer for the next decade.

If you made a smartphone that last a decade, you'd have so many people queuing around the block to buy it, that you won't EVER have to worry about not selling to that same customer for the next 10 years...

You'd rather build a crappy product so when it breaks after a year, the customer come back and buys another one. In the real world, that customer goes to the manufacturer that builds the product to last a decade...

RE: Keep it Real
By Cheesew1z69 on 10/30/2013 9:08:23 AM , Rating: 1
RE: Keep it Real
By retrospooty on 10/31/2013 11:28:57 AM , Rating: 2
Talk about not getting it. Are you following the same conversation as me? It doesn't appear to be the case.

RE: Keep it Real
By TheJian on 10/29/2013 5:16:34 AM , Rating: 2
It's only a curse to own fabs when you can't afford them and have to borrow the farm (thus paying interest out the wazoo) to buy one. AMD's problems started when they paid 3x what they should have for ATI. That broke them and made the price of the fabs unsustainable.

The fab wasn't the problem. Stupid management paying 3B more than they should have for ATI was the problem. That should have been CASH direct into the fab prices. DEBT (caused by ATI purchase mostly) is what is still killing AMD today. When you have to make ~300mil extra profits just to make a dime life sucks. Rather than making 300mil, you just break even instead. NOT GOOD. They had to sell the fab to pay for the ATI mistake...LOL. I love AMD, but not the IDIOTS running their company into the ground.

RE: Keep it Real
By Kiffberet on 10/29/2013 10:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
AMD were already behind Intel and struggling with debt BEFORE they bought ATI.

In fact ATI is the only part of the business that made a profit.
The tech they bought from ATI has also enabled AMD to design arguably the best 'System on a Chip's

RE: Keep it Real
By testbug00 on 10/29/2013 10:54:19 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, well AMD payed something like 5.4 billion dollars for ATI, something like 3 billion of that was borrowed, and AMD ended up writing down over 1.5 billion dollars on that purchase.

AMD wasn't in a good position to start, but buying ATI for the extra cash put them hard in the hole.

If they didn't have to pay that extra they would probably still have parts of the biz like the Adreno GPU (which was sold to Qualcomm for pretty damn cheap) and be making quite a bit more money today.

the ATI purchase sent AMD from "being bad" to be "f*cking shit" for quite a while, the purchase eventually paid off (I believe) with Fusion and HSA (I said paid off because HSA has pretty much launched, and APUs saved AMD (bobcat mostly)).

RE: Keep it Real
By crispbp04 on 10/29/2013 7:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know the difference between their and there?

RE: Keep it Real
RE: Keep it Real
By Labotomizer on 10/28/2013 7:52:33 PM , Rating: 3
We are filing a formal cease and desist order against you for using the term "iHater". As you know, anything starting with lower case "i" followed by a capital letter is trademarked, copyrighted and patented by Apple.

In addition, we will need to search your home as you clearly are in possession of a prototype product as that is the only way to explain knowledge of a top-secret device known as the iHater. While we cannot disclose the details of the device we can say that it will revolutionize your life in much the same way as stunning innovations such as the longer screen of the iPhone 5 series of devices and the unparalleled thinness of the iPad Air, now an amazing 1.7mm thinner than before. Prepare to be iAmazed!

RE: Keep it Real
By t_sandman on 10/28/2013 8:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
We are filing a formal cease and desist order against you for using the term "iHater".

Ok, you got me. While I try to catch my breath from laughing so hard, I'll make a note to self to avoid using that term.

RE: Keep it Real
By ritualm on 10/28/2013 8:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Apple's short-term outlook is extremely rosy.

Apple's long-term outlook is more negative and murkier than the current US government's budget problems.

375 a share
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 6:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
I've long said the company is worth 375 a share, until then it is still a bubble waiting to burst.

RE: 375 a share
By Mint on 10/28/2013 7:07:30 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has $150 billion in cash on hand.

According to you, the rest of the company - currently earning $40B/yr - is worth only $225B. Apple could announce tomorrow that in 2020 it's going to liquidate and cease operations, and it would still be worth more than $375 a share today.

RE: 375 a share
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 7:21:22 PM , Rating: 3
Apple has billions in cash because they refuse to return that profit to American banks where they would have to pay taxes on it. They built their fortune on the iPod which is worth nothing today. Their entire business business model is built on a single device that could be obsolete tomorrow. They don't produce anything, Foxconn, Samsung, and others do that. Their components all come from foreign manufacturers. Their software is in decline.

Their ancillary products don't even hold a safe minorty of the market. Their entire business teeters on a cliff of fashion and popularity. If they ceased operations they would be worth nothing but a building in Cupertino... fanaticism is not marketable sir.

RE: 375 a share
By Tony Swash on 10/28/2013 7:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
Apple has billions in cash because they refuse to return that profit to American banks where they would have to pay taxes on it. They built their fortune on the iPod which is worth nothing today. Their entire business business model is built on a single device that could be obsolete tomorrow. They don't produce anything, Foxconn, Samsung, and others do that. Their components all come from foreign manufacturers. Their software is in decline. Their ancillary products don't even hold a safe minorty of the market. Their entire business teeters on a cliff of fashion and popularity. If they ceased operations they would be worth nothing but a building in Cupertino... fanaticism is not marketable sir.

It's good to see that Surrealism is still alive as an art form.

RE: 375 a share
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 8:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
You could have chosen to contest my arguments, or to have proposed your own, even to question my motives, but no, you chose to insult me. The lowest form of debate, from the lowest form of life. Fitting.

RE: 375 a share
By Tony Swash on 10/28/13, Rating: 0
RE: 375 a share
By coburn_c on 10/28/2013 9:32:04 PM , Rating: 3
1) "Maybe not having the cash in the US is the problem," he suggested with what seemed like the hint of a mischievous grin. - Wozniak hern-ireland/steve-wozniak-apples-tax-avoidance-is- ethically-wrong-29309958.html

What arguments? You just made a series of meaningless statements

Apple had a phase of their business when the dominated the MP3 player market during which they made a lot of money

You confirmed my argument here.

You could make that statement about lots of companies (example: Boeing's entire business is based on selling aircraft which could be obsolete tomorrow)

"Boeing is organized into five primary divisions: Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA), Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS), Engineering, Operations & Technology, Boeing Capital and Boeing Shared Services Group."

Again you could say that about pretty much any large manufacturer, all outsource component manufacture, almost no companies make all the components of their end products.

Wrong, manufacturers by definition manufacture products. Only software companies make no product.

I don't know what that means, what products and what on earth is a "safe minorty of the market".

Perhaps you should ascertain their meaning before calling my statements meaningless. Apple's other products hold what could be consider 'boutique' market shares.

Apple is nearly four decades old and is the only large PC company that has made a successful transition to a post PC company.

Apple failed as a PC company and was rescued by Microsoft.

The only fanaticism around is your inane Apple phobia.

This coming from someone who would dismiss arguments he doesn't even comprehend.

RE: 375 a share
By TakinYourPoints on 10/28/2013 11:24:22 PM , Rating: 4
Apple failed as a PC company and was rescued by Microsoft.

Apple's financial bailout from Microsoft was pure marketing and public face-saving by both companies.

At the time Apple had $1.5 billion in cash and a $3 billion market cap. They were burning through cash but that was stemmed by axing numerous product lines (PDAs, printers) and narrowing down their computer lines from over a dozen to just four. Restructuring before they even released the iMac put them back in the black by the following quarter.

The Microsoft "investment" was $150 million of restricted shares created by diluting existing AAPL shares, which again were worth $3 billion at the time.

Funny money.

That's obviously pocket change, so why do it in the first place? The important part of the agreement had nothing to do with the investment, that was just a dog and pony show for the masses.

The important part was Microsoft agreeing to continued development of IE and Office for the Mac (important to maintain confidence in a dying brand) and numerous cross-licensing agreements that continue to this day. Ever wonder why Microsoft is exempt from legal pressure from Apple over Windows Phone while Samsung isn't? Microsoft licenses Apple tech that Samsung refuses to take part of. It goes both ways, Apple is one of the largest ActiveSync licensees in the world, so much so that the iOS implementation of ActiveSync is (strangely) even better than what is currently in WP.

Going the other way, Apple dropped charges regarding UI and Microsoft getting caught stealing QuickTime code. The latter may have been the entire reason Microsoft did all this. It was obviously important for MS given the massive amount of legal pressure they were getting from the DOJ at the time.

All of the above mattered a lot. IE, Office, cross-licensing, dropping legal charges over QT, all important. $150 million in imaginary money means nothing in the face of about $4.5 billion in liquid funds and market capitalization, without even counting physical assets.

Regarding the iPod, it wasn't nearly the money maker that you think it is. You know what always made more money for Apple than the iPod? The Mac. The iPod was absolutely important in terms of cultural mind-share and getting more people into Macs, but it was basically a halo product rather than their main source of revenue. The Mac always made more. This is very different from the iPhone, a product so big that it makes more than the insanely massive Windows and Office combined. The two products cannot be compared.

Finally, their profit, even with declining margins, doesn't justify $375 a share. That would mean a price-multiple of around 8, which is insanely low for a tech these days. Even at its current valuation AAPL is still valued under Dell (DELL of all companies) and MSFT, and it is under half of the 30 PE GOOG is trading at. Let's not even talk about AMZN with its 1200+ PE and a still climbing chart.

$375 will either happen when investor confidence collapses even in the face of increasing profit and revenue (its happened before) or when their profits actually decline. I'm not a fortune teller. I do know that they continue to increase shipments and revenue YoY, even in the face of slowed growth or actual declines in the mobile high end elsewhere. Love them or hate them, the trend continues.

It could hit $375, we'll see!

RE: 375 a share
By w8gaming on 10/29/2013 3:51:51 AM , Rating: 2
During the height of its popularity, iPod made almost as much profit for Apple as the Macs. That is not a halo product as you claimed. And iPod only really picked up in sales once Apple decided to support it on Windows platform, guess that mean it does not help that much to get people into buying Macs.

By datdamonfoo on 10/28/2013 6:12:14 PM , Rating: 3
So are the tech blogs going to blame the decrease in Mac sales on Windows 8 like they do PC sales?

RE: Hmm...
By Motoman on 10/28/2013 6:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
If anything, Win8 should have driven an increase in Mac sales.

RE: Hmm...
By Mint on 10/28/2013 7:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is just asking for an Onion article:

"Mac sales fall: Dislike for Windows 8 to blame"

Apple's Declining profit margin.
By ptmmac on 10/28/2013 10:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to see if anyone would thank Apple for lowering their customer's software expenses by reducing their profit margin? I mean you can't have it both ways: Apple overcharges for their products, and they are no longer charging for software updates for any Apple products. How can free be overpriced? They don't even sell your data to advertisers for money like Google, but they are the soon to be destroyed evil empire supported by idiots and wanna bees.

I take all the comments here about Apple's future of doom and gloom as a wonderful contrarian indicator of the financial health of the company. Remember when the true believers were sure Microsoft would die when faced with open source software? I don't believe it was open source that has actually cut into Microsoft's financial future. You could argue that Google has cut into Microsoft's turf, but I am not at all convinced that giving away software with legal trojans, called cookies, is something that should qualify as free software.

By retrospooty on 10/28/2013 11:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
[stuck between /facepalm /roll eyes and lol]

By w8gaming on 10/29/2013 4:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
There are two types of ice cream companies. One company charges lots of money for the ice cream but provide the ice cream cone free. Another company charges little for the ice cream but ice cream cone costs extra. Why should people thank the company that charges lots of money for the ice cream in the first place even though the cone is free?

More important to the people is which ice cream is better.

By drumsticks on 10/28/2013 6:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even really particularly like apple but I wish people would stop calling the 5C the "budget" iphone like Apple's view of budget is comical.

It's the exact same internals as the 5, and slots in exactly where said 5 would have been. Criticize apple for being greedy, but don't misconstrue greed for Apple thinking that they were actually launching a budget phone. The 4S is their budget phone.

RE: Meh
By Motoman on 10/28/2013 6:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
That's probably why Tiff put the word "budget" in quotes. Because there's nothing "budget" about it.

IMHO a "budget" device is one you can buy off the shelf with no contract for maybe a hundred bucks. If it costs $200 at full price, it's a midrange device...and if it's $400 or more it's a high-end device.

Saying you've got a $450 "budget" device is tantamount to just giving the market the finger and advising everyone to go and have intercourse with themselves.

Apple is doomed
By Tony Swash on 10/28/2013 7:11:50 PM , Rating: 1
iPhone sales up 25% year on year.

Obviously dead in the water.


RE: Apple is doomed
By retrospooty on 10/28/2013 7:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
Lets just say Apple is boring and leave it at that, mmmmkay? 4 straight years of the exact same form factor leaves us all yawning.

I do think the rumors are all true and that next year we will see a large screened iPhone. Then it will get interesting.

Profit Drop? Or traffic grab?
By XZerg on 10/29/2013 8:12:48 AM , Rating: 2
such an incorrect statement to grab traffic... pathetic.

Apple needs to shift its focus
By John Simons on 10/31/2013 9:59:19 AM , Rating: 2
When one thinks of apple they think of a premium brand image. However with the lack of innovation the inevitable has happened. People don't feel the need to buy newer more expensive phones and rather go for older models which perform more or less the same way. With the 4 and 4s driving the majority of the earnings for the 4Q FY13 it will be interesting to see how apple responds.

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki