Tech earnings.

[Coronita]

What are you talking about? APPL blew away all estimates. What they did was lower guidance for next quarter, which is still higher than last year's.

"OMG! Apple's best quarter ever? We are all DOOMED!! SELL!!"

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1062.html

 

 

Sure, for the past quarter …..But you know how the game is played. It's not always just about how much a company actually makes, a lot has to do about meeting,beating, or falling short of expectations. Apple fell short on guidance for the next quarter, and it raised concerns of a slowdown (perhaps unfounded..but time will tell) And it announced this on a really bad day on wall street. Perhaps wall street has set the bar too high, but it is what it is. And when at a rich $200/share, any slight deviation from expectation, it was bound to get wacked. I doubt we'll see $200/share again in the short term. And if they have another quarter that just meets or lowers expectations next time, I would think wall street is going to wack the stock some more. As much as i like their products, I cant convince myself to buy shares at this level. 

 

——

The company's earnings-per-share guidance of 94 cents was 15 cents short of what Wall Street was expecting. The sales forecast of $6.8 billion was roughly $200 million short of analyst estimates. The period covers the first three months of 2008.

Apple executives provided little explanation for the guidance shortfall, noting that sales are still expected to grow 29 percent, more than in previous years.

Apple has historically given conservative guidance, but the size of the miss rattled investors already skittish about the health of the economy.

Lower-than-expected sales of iPods loomed over the results.

Many analysts were expecting Apple to sell around 25 million iPods during the holiday quarter. Apple, however, sold 22.1 million, a figure that stirred fears sales will suffer as the company tries to convince consumers to buy higher-end iPods.

—–

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I don't want to be a donkey, but how did AMD top estimates?

AMD 7.58, +0.02, +0.3%) reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.772 billion, or $3.06 per share, compared with a loss of $576 million, or $1.08 per share, for the same period last year.
Revenue for the period remained relatively flat at $1.77 billion — shy of the $1.79 billion expected by analysts, according to estimates from Thomson Financial.

It's dropped from a high of $41 in early 2006 to $7.58 and took a 1.7 billion write off on its ATI acquisition.

 

 

 

The company reported late Thursday its quarterly loss declined, excluding a $1.61 billion impairment charge for overspending on its 2006 acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI Technologies Inc.

Excluding such one-time items, AMD posted a loss 17 cents per share. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected a loss of 36 cents a share.

….

 

Surely by now you know how the game is played. It's not always about how much money you actually make or lose .It's about meeting, beating, or falling short of expectations. 🙂

AMD, though in the crapper, posted a 17cents/share loss. Ah, but all the analysts were expecting much worse. Like I said, it might not make sense, but why did intel which pretty much made money, but came short of expectations drop 20+%, while amd, which lost money, rose after earnings about 13%. No expert here, but I think AMD probably has more potential to go up on rumors and momentum more so than intel at this point. Me thinks AMD pretty much flushed out a lot of bad news earlier . And i won't be surprised in theirs rumors of a takeover, buyout on the horizon. At $6/share a few days ago, it was cheap to take a chance. Highly speculative, but I figure that fund from UAE that invested in AMD at $8/share would be worse off 🙂

The impression i got from intel during the con-call was that they are hiding behind their numbers, just in case the recession does impact them- their saying they're not being hit by the recession, that the channels are good, and they expect to do just fine in Q1, yet they still didn't revise their q1 numbers.

Take a look at apple for another instance. Great company, great products, makes a hell of lot of money. Came short on analysts expectations. Stock gets wacked.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

 

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I don't want to be a donkey, but how did AMD top estimates?

AMD 7.58, +0.02, +0.3%) reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.772 billion, or $3.06 per share, compared with a loss of $576 million, or $1.08 per share, for the same period last year.
Revenue for the period remained relatively flat at $1.77 billion — shy of the $1.79 billion expected by analysts, according to estimates from Thomson Financial.

It's dropped from a high of $41 in early 2006 to $7.58 and took a 1.7 billion write off on its ATI acquisition.

 

 

 

The company reported late Thursday its quarterly loss declined, excluding a $1.61 billion impairment charge for overspending on its 2006 acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI Technologies Inc.

Excluding such one-time items, AMD posted a loss 17 cents per share. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected a loss of 36 cents a share.

….

 

Surely by now you know how the game is played. It's not always about how much money you actually make or lose .It's about meeting, beating, or falling short of expectations. 🙂

AMD, though in the crapper, posted a 17cents/share loss. Ah, but all the analysts were expecting much worse. Like I said, it might not make sense, but why did intel which pretty much made money, but came short of expectations drop 20+%, while amd, which lost money, rose after earnings about 13%. No expert here, but I think AMD probably has more potential to go up on rumors and momentum more so than intel at this point. Me thinks AMD pretty much flushed out a lot of bad news earlier . And i won't be surprised in theirs rumors of a takeover, buyout on the horizon. At $6/share a few days ago, it was cheap to take a chance. Highly speculative, but I figure that fund from UAE that invested in AMD at $8/share would be worse off 🙂

The impression i got from intel during the con-call was that they are hiding behind their numbers, just in case the recession does impact them- their saying they're not being hit by the recession, that the channels are good, and they expect to do just fine in Q1, yet they still didn't revise their q1 numbers.

Take a look at apple for another instance. Great company, great products, makes a hell of lot of money. Came short on analysts expectations. Stock gets wacked.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

 

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I don't want to be a donkey, but how did AMD top estimates?

AMD 7.58, +0.02, +0.3%) reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.772 billion, or $3.06 per share, compared with a loss of $576 million, or $1.08 per share, for the same period last year.
Revenue for the period remained relatively flat at $1.77 billion — shy of the $1.79 billion expected by analysts, according to estimates from Thomson Financial.

It's dropped from a high of $41 in early 2006 to $7.58 and took a 1.7 billion write off on its ATI acquisition.

 

 

 

The company reported late Thursday its quarterly loss declined, excluding a $1.61 billion impairment charge for overspending on its 2006 acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI Technologies Inc.

Excluding such one-time items, AMD posted a loss 17 cents per share. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected a loss of 36 cents a share.

….

 

Surely by now you know how the game is played. It's not always about how much money you actually make or lose .It's about meeting, beating, or falling short of expectations. 🙂

AMD, though in the crapper, posted a 17cents/share loss. Ah, but all the analysts were expecting much worse. Like I said, it might not make sense, but why did intel which pretty much made money, but came short of expectations drop 20+%, while amd, which lost money, rose after earnings about 13%. No expert here, but I think AMD probably has more potential to go up on rumors and momentum more so than intel at this point. Me thinks AMD pretty much flushed out a lot of bad news earlier . And i won't be surprised in theirs rumors of a takeover, buyout on the horizon. At $6/share a few days ago, it was cheap to take a chance. Highly speculative, but I figure that fund from UAE that invested in AMD at $8/share would be worse off 🙂

The impression i got from intel during the con-call was that they are hiding behind their numbers, just in case the recession does impact them- their saying they're not being hit by the recession, that the channels are good, and they expect to do just fine in Q1, yet they still didn't revise their q1 numbers.

Take a look at apple for another instance. Great company, great products, makes a hell of lot of money. Came short on analysts expectations. Stock gets wacked.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

 

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I don't want to be a donkey, but how did AMD top estimates?

AMD 7.58, +0.02, +0.3%) reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.772 billion, or $3.06 per share, compared with a loss of $576 million, or $1.08 per share, for the same period last year.
Revenue for the period remained relatively flat at $1.77 billion — shy of the $1.79 billion expected by analysts, according to estimates from Thomson Financial.

It's dropped from a high of $41 in early 2006 to $7.58 and took a 1.7 billion write off on its ATI acquisition.

 

 

 

The company reported late Thursday its quarterly loss declined, excluding a $1.61 billion impairment charge for overspending on its 2006 acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI Technologies Inc.

Excluding such one-time items, AMD posted a loss 17 cents per share. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected a loss of 36 cents a share.

….

 

Surely by now you know how the game is played. It's not always about how much money you actually make or lose .It's about meeting, beating, or falling short of expectations. 🙂

AMD, though in the crapper, posted a 17cents/share loss. Ah, but all the analysts were expecting much worse. Like I said, it might not make sense, but why did intel which pretty much made money, but came short of expectations drop 20+%, while amd, which lost money, rose after earnings about 13%. No expert here, but I think AMD probably has more potential to go up on rumors and momentum more so than intel at this point. Me thinks AMD pretty much flushed out a lot of bad news earlier . And i won't be surprised in theirs rumors of a takeover, buyout on the horizon. At $6/share a few days ago, it was cheap to take a chance. Highly speculative, but I figure that fund from UAE that invested in AMD at $8/share would be worse off 🙂

The impression i got from intel during the con-call was that they are hiding behind their numbers, just in case the recession does impact them- their saying they're not being hit by the recession, that the channels are good, and they expect to do just fine in Q1, yet they still didn't revise their q1 numbers.

Take a look at apple for another instance. Great company, great products, makes a hell of lot of money. Came short on analysts expectations. Stock gets wacked.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

 

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

I don't want to be a donkey, but how did AMD top estimates?

AMD 7.58, +0.02, +0.3%) reported a fourth-quarter net loss of $1.772 billion, or $3.06 per share, compared with a loss of $576 million, or $1.08 per share, for the same period last year.
Revenue for the period remained relatively flat at $1.77 billion — shy of the $1.79 billion expected by analysts, according to estimates from Thomson Financial.

It's dropped from a high of $41 in early 2006 to $7.58 and took a 1.7 billion write off on its ATI acquisition.

 

 

 

The company reported late Thursday its quarterly loss declined, excluding a $1.61 billion impairment charge for overspending on its 2006 acquisition of graphics chip maker ATI Technologies Inc.

Excluding such one-time items, AMD posted a loss 17 cents per share. Analysts polled by Thomson Financial, on average, expected a loss of 36 cents a share.

….

 

Surely by now you know how the game is played. It's not always about how much money you actually make or lose .It's about meeting, beating, or falling short of expectations. 🙂

AMD, though in the crapper, posted a 17cents/share loss. Ah, but all the analysts were expecting much worse. Like I said, it might not make sense, but why did intel which pretty much made money, but came short of expectations drop 20+%, while amd, which lost money, rose after earnings about 13%. No expert here, but I think AMD probably has more potential to go up on rumors and momentum more so than intel at this point. Me thinks AMD pretty much flushed out a lot of bad news earlier . And i won't be surprised in theirs rumors of a takeover, buyout on the horizon. At $6/share a few days ago, it was cheap to take a chance. Highly speculative, but I figure that fund from UAE that invested in AMD at $8/share would be worse off 🙂

The impression i got from intel during the con-call was that they are hiding behind their numbers, just in case the recession does impact them- their saying they're not being hit by the recession, that the channels are good, and they expect to do just fine in Q1, yet they still didn't revise their q1 numbers.

Take a look at apple for another instance. Great company, great products, makes a hell of lot of money. Came short on analysts expectations. Stock gets wacked.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

 

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You know FLU you are posting way to optimistic data for this website. If you don't watch out the piggington men in black are gonna have to take you out of the picture.

SD Realtor

 

Dont worry. I have a pretty think fat skin…And i don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I can always resort to trash talking too.

 

Personally, I hope it's payback time.  (Revenge of the geeks II). Prior to the dot coms, common people didn't wanted to be in tech. During the dot coms, non-techs got into tech for the to make a $. They got flushed out when the dot bomb came.

Then a lot of them probably became real estate "gurus", only to yet again be flushed out this time around.

I have nothing against RE agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers that are in the business because that's really their thing.

It's all the fair-weather fans/quick buck job migrants that I despise. Long term, it's probably better for the more established agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers who want to stay in this business that there is this flushing out of all the wannabes…Hey, at least you can't get outsourced to India or China ….That's already a plus….(Punchline- there are some jobs even India/China doesn't want…Just kidding folks…)

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You know FLU you are posting way to optimistic data for this website. If you don't watch out the piggington men in black are gonna have to take you out of the picture.

SD Realtor

 

Dont worry. I have a pretty think fat skin…And i don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I can always resort to trash talking too.

 

Personally, I hope it's payback time.  (Revenge of the geeks II). Prior to the dot coms, common people didn't wanted to be in tech. During the dot coms, non-techs got into tech for the to make a $. They got flushed out when the dot bomb came.

Then a lot of them probably became real estate "gurus", only to yet again be flushed out this time around.

I have nothing against RE agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers that are in the business because that's really their thing.

It's all the fair-weather fans/quick buck job migrants that I despise. Long term, it's probably better for the more established agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers who want to stay in this business that there is this flushing out of all the wannabes…Hey, at least you can't get outsourced to India or China ….That's already a plus….(Punchline- there are some jobs even India/China doesn't want…Just kidding folks…)

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You know FLU you are posting way to optimistic data for this website. If you don't watch out the piggington men in black are gonna have to take you out of the picture.

SD Realtor

 

Dont worry. I have a pretty think fat skin…And i don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I can always resort to trash talking too.

 

Personally, I hope it's payback time.  (Revenge of the geeks II). Prior to the dot coms, common people didn't wanted to be in tech. During the dot coms, non-techs got into tech for the to make a $. They got flushed out when the dot bomb came.

Then a lot of them probably became real estate "gurus", only to yet again be flushed out this time around.

I have nothing against RE agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers that are in the business because that's really their thing.

It's all the fair-weather fans/quick buck job migrants that I despise. Long term, it's probably better for the more established agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers who want to stay in this business that there is this flushing out of all the wannabes…Hey, at least you can't get outsourced to India or China ….That's already a plus….(Punchline- there are some jobs even India/China doesn't want…Just kidding folks…)

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You know FLU you are posting way to optimistic data for this website. If you don't watch out the piggington men in black are gonna have to take you out of the picture.

SD Realtor

 

Dont worry. I have a pretty think fat skin…And i don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I can always resort to trash talking too.

 

Personally, I hope it's payback time.  (Revenge of the geeks II). Prior to the dot coms, common people didn't wanted to be in tech. During the dot coms, non-techs got into tech for the to make a $. They got flushed out when the dot bomb came.

Then a lot of them probably became real estate "gurus", only to yet again be flushed out this time around.

I have nothing against RE agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers that are in the business because that's really their thing.

It's all the fair-weather fans/quick buck job migrants that I despise. Long term, it's probably better for the more established agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers who want to stay in this business that there is this flushing out of all the wannabes…Hey, at least you can't get outsourced to India or China ….That's already a plus….(Punchline- there are some jobs even India/China doesn't want…Just kidding folks…)

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

You know FLU you are posting way to optimistic data for this website. If you don't watch out the piggington men in black are gonna have to take you out of the picture.

SD Realtor

 

Dont worry. I have a pretty think fat skin…And i don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong. I can always resort to trash talking too.

 

Personally, I hope it's payback time.  (Revenge of the geeks II). Prior to the dot coms, common people didn't wanted to be in tech. During the dot coms, non-techs got into tech for the to make a $. They got flushed out when the dot bomb came.

Then a lot of them probably became real estate "gurus", only to yet again be flushed out this time around.

I have nothing against RE agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers that are in the business because that's really their thing.

It's all the fair-weather fans/quick buck job migrants that I despise. Long term, it's probably better for the more established agents/brokers/appraisers/loan officers who want to stay in this business that there is this flushing out of all the wannabes…Hey, at least you can't get outsourced to India or China ….That's already a plus….(Punchline- there are some jobs even India/China doesn't want…Just kidding folks…)

 

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Apple lovers are going to hate me for posting this. But the article is amusing. Take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from Fortune, which is known more for selling ads then giving sound financial advice.

 

The case of the 1.4 million missing iPhones

The talk among Apple (AAPL) watchers today is Toni Sacconaghi’s dogged pursuit of the 4 million iPhones Steve Jobs claimed to have sold as of Jan. 15, the date of his Macworld keynote speech.

AT&T (T), the iPhone’s exclusive U.S. carrier, reported yesterday that it had activated “just at or just slightly under 2 million” iPhones. That’s quite a discrepancy.

Sacconaghi, Sanford Bernstein’s Apple specialist, did the math and concluded in a report to clients that there are roughly 1.4 million iPhones “missing in action,” either unlocked or sitting in inventory. Assuming that 20% of those iPhones were purchased to be unlocked (a generous assumption given that a jailbreak for the latest iPhone firmware was only released yesterday), he believes that there are at least 650,000 gathering dust somewhere — in warehouses, perhaps, or in closets, as unwanted Christmas presents waiting to be returned.

Here’s how he gets that number:

• 3.75 million iPhones sold as of Dec. 29 (per Apple’s Q1 report)
• minus 2 million iPhones activated through AT&T as of Dec. 31 (per AT&T)
• minus 350,000 iPhones sold in Europe via O2, T-Mobile and Orange
• minus 750,000 iPhones purchased to be unlocked
• equals 650,000 unaccounted for.

Sacconaghi concludes:

This is negative in two ways: (1) it indicates end-user demand for iPhone is lower than many investors may think based on Apple’s sales figure; and (2) it points to slower iPhone sales in the current quarter, since much of this inventory is likely to be drawn down.

Of course, compared to other Apple analysts, Sacconaghi is something of a bear. One day before the Q1 earnings report and the subsequent run on Apple shares, he went out on a limb and predicted that the company would sell only 7 million iPhones in 2008. That’s considerably less than the 10 million target Steve Jobs set — a goal COO Tim Cook said on Tuesday he remained “very confident” they would hit.

Most Apple watchers shared Cook’s confidence, given the 4 million number Jobs had trotted out at Macworld. Today they’re singing a different tune.

“Apple might have a demand problem,” writes Tom Krazit at CNET.

Russell Shaw at ZDNet says the iPhone is at a “crossing the chasm” moment, stuck between early adopters and the mainsteam, and predicts that to survive its price will have to come down to $299 by the end of May at the latest.

Ewan McLeod at the U.K.’s SMS Text News waxes positively elegiac in a post entitled “The Apple iPhone will only ever be a bit player”:

This may be premature. A lot could change in the next 50 weeks. New apps. A 16 GB iPhone. A 3G model. New price points. New markets in Canada, Thailand, and maybe even China.

But one thing is certain: having promised and repromised to sell 10 million iPhones in 2008, there will be hell to pay in 2009 if Apple falls even a little bit short.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Apple lovers are going to hate me for posting this. But the article is amusing. Take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from Fortune, which is known more for selling ads then giving sound financial advice.

 

The case of the 1.4 million missing iPhones

The talk among Apple (AAPL) watchers today is Toni Sacconaghi’s dogged pursuit of the 4 million iPhones Steve Jobs claimed to have sold as of Jan. 15, the date of his Macworld keynote speech.

AT&T (T), the iPhone’s exclusive U.S. carrier, reported yesterday that it had activated “just at or just slightly under 2 million” iPhones. That’s quite a discrepancy.

Sacconaghi, Sanford Bernstein’s Apple specialist, did the math and concluded in a report to clients that there are roughly 1.4 million iPhones “missing in action,” either unlocked or sitting in inventory. Assuming that 20% of those iPhones were purchased to be unlocked (a generous assumption given that a jailbreak for the latest iPhone firmware was only released yesterday), he believes that there are at least 650,000 gathering dust somewhere — in warehouses, perhaps, or in closets, as unwanted Christmas presents waiting to be returned.

Here’s how he gets that number:

• 3.75 million iPhones sold as of Dec. 29 (per Apple’s Q1 report)
• minus 2 million iPhones activated through AT&T as of Dec. 31 (per AT&T)
• minus 350,000 iPhones sold in Europe via O2, T-Mobile and Orange
• minus 750,000 iPhones purchased to be unlocked
• equals 650,000 unaccounted for.

Sacconaghi concludes:

This is negative in two ways: (1) it indicates end-user demand for iPhone is lower than many investors may think based on Apple’s sales figure; and (2) it points to slower iPhone sales in the current quarter, since much of this inventory is likely to be drawn down.

Of course, compared to other Apple analysts, Sacconaghi is something of a bear. One day before the Q1 earnings report and the subsequent run on Apple shares, he went out on a limb and predicted that the company would sell only 7 million iPhones in 2008. That’s considerably less than the 10 million target Steve Jobs set — a goal COO Tim Cook said on Tuesday he remained “very confident” they would hit.

Most Apple watchers shared Cook’s confidence, given the 4 million number Jobs had trotted out at Macworld. Today they’re singing a different tune.

“Apple might have a demand problem,” writes Tom Krazit at CNET.

Russell Shaw at ZDNet says the iPhone is at a “crossing the chasm” moment, stuck between early adopters and the mainsteam, and predicts that to survive its price will have to come down to $299 by the end of May at the latest.

Ewan McLeod at the U.K.’s SMS Text News waxes positively elegiac in a post entitled “The Apple iPhone will only ever be a bit player”:

This may be premature. A lot could change in the next 50 weeks. New apps. A 16 GB iPhone. A 3G model. New price points. New markets in Canada, Thailand, and maybe even China.

But one thing is certain: having promised and repromised to sell 10 million iPhones in 2008, there will be hell to pay in 2009 if Apple falls even a little bit short.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Apple lovers are going to hate me for posting this. But the article is amusing. Take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from Fortune, which is known more for selling ads then giving sound financial advice.

 

The case of the 1.4 million missing iPhones

The talk among Apple (AAPL) watchers today is Toni Sacconaghi’s dogged pursuit of the 4 million iPhones Steve Jobs claimed to have sold as of Jan. 15, the date of his Macworld keynote speech.

AT&T (T), the iPhone’s exclusive U.S. carrier, reported yesterday that it had activated “just at or just slightly under 2 million” iPhones. That’s quite a discrepancy.

Sacconaghi, Sanford Bernstein’s Apple specialist, did the math and concluded in a report to clients that there are roughly 1.4 million iPhones “missing in action,” either unlocked or sitting in inventory. Assuming that 20% of those iPhones were purchased to be unlocked (a generous assumption given that a jailbreak for the latest iPhone firmware was only released yesterday), he believes that there are at least 650,000 gathering dust somewhere — in warehouses, perhaps, or in closets, as unwanted Christmas presents waiting to be returned.

Here’s how he gets that number:

• 3.75 million iPhones sold as of Dec. 29 (per Apple’s Q1 report)
• minus 2 million iPhones activated through AT&T as of Dec. 31 (per AT&T)
• minus 350,000 iPhones sold in Europe via O2, T-Mobile and Orange
• minus 750,000 iPhones purchased to be unlocked
• equals 650,000 unaccounted for.

Sacconaghi concludes:

This is negative in two ways: (1) it indicates end-user demand for iPhone is lower than many investors may think based on Apple’s sales figure; and (2) it points to slower iPhone sales in the current quarter, since much of this inventory is likely to be drawn down.

Of course, compared to other Apple analysts, Sacconaghi is something of a bear. One day before the Q1 earnings report and the subsequent run on Apple shares, he went out on a limb and predicted that the company would sell only 7 million iPhones in 2008. That’s considerably less than the 10 million target Steve Jobs set — a goal COO Tim Cook said on Tuesday he remained “very confident” they would hit.

Most Apple watchers shared Cook’s confidence, given the 4 million number Jobs had trotted out at Macworld. Today they’re singing a different tune.

“Apple might have a demand problem,” writes Tom Krazit at CNET.

Russell Shaw at ZDNet says the iPhone is at a “crossing the chasm” moment, stuck between early adopters and the mainsteam, and predicts that to survive its price will have to come down to $299 by the end of May at the latest.

Ewan McLeod at the U.K.’s SMS Text News waxes positively elegiac in a post entitled “The Apple iPhone will only ever be a bit player”:

This may be premature. A lot could change in the next 50 weeks. New apps. A 16 GB iPhone. A 3G model. New price points. New markets in Canada, Thailand, and maybe even China.

But one thing is certain: having promised and repromised to sell 10 million iPhones in 2008, there will be hell to pay in 2009 if Apple falls even a little bit short.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Coronita]

Apple lovers are going to hate me for posting this. But the article is amusing. Take it with a grain of salt, because it comes from Fortune, which is known more for selling ads then giving sound financial advice.

 

The case of the 1.4 million missing iPhones

The talk among Apple (AAPL) watchers today is Toni Sacconaghi’s dogged pursuit of the 4 million iPhones Steve Jobs claimed to have sold as of Jan. 15, the date of his Macworld keynote speech.

AT&T (T), the iPhone’s exclusive U.S. carrier, reported yesterday that it had activated “just at or just slightly under 2 million” iPhones. That’s quite a discrepancy.

Sacconaghi, Sanford Bernstein’s Apple specialist, did the math and concluded in a report to clients that there are roughly 1.4 million iPhones “missing in action,” either unlocked or sitting in inventory. Assuming that 20% of those iPhones were purchased to be unlocked (a generous assumption given that a jailbreak for the latest iPhone firmware was only released yesterday), he believes that there are at least 650,000 gathering dust somewhere — in warehouses, perhaps, or in closets, as unwanted Christmas presents waiting to be returned.

Here’s how he gets that number:

• 3.75 million iPhones sold as of Dec. 29 (per Apple’s Q1 report)
• minus 2 million iPhones activated through AT&T as of Dec. 31 (per AT&T)
• minus 350,000 iPhones sold in Europe via O2, T-Mobile and Orange
• minus 750,000 iPhones purchased to be unlocked
• equals 650,000 unaccounted for.

Sacconaghi concludes:

This is negative in two ways: (1) it indicates end-user demand for iPhone is lower than many investors may think based on Apple’s sales figure; and (2) it points to slower iPhone sales in the current quarter, since much of this inventory is likely to be drawn down.

Of course, compared to other Apple analysts, Sacconaghi is something of a bear. One day before the Q1 earnings report and the subsequent run on Apple shares, he went out on a limb and predicted that the company would sell only 7 million iPhones in 2008. That’s considerably less than the 10 million target Steve Jobs set — a goal COO Tim Cook said on Tuesday he remained “very confident” they would hit.

Most Apple watchers shared Cook’s confidence, given the 4 million number Jobs had trotted out at Macworld. Today they’re singing a different tune.

“Apple might have a demand problem,” writes Tom Krazit at CNET.

Russell Shaw at ZDNet says the iPhone is at a “crossing the chasm” moment, stuck between early adopters and the mainsteam, and predicts that to survive its price will have to come down to $299 by the end of May at the latest.

Ewan McLeod at the U.K.’s SMS Text News waxes positively elegiac in a post entitled “The Apple iPhone will only ever be a bit player”:

This may be premature. A lot could change in the next 50 weeks. New apps. A 16 GB iPhone. A 3G model. New price points. New markets in Canada, Thailand, and maybe even China.

But one thing is certain: having promised and repromised to sell 10 million iPhones in 2008, there will be hell to pay in 2009 if Apple falls even a little bit short.

 

[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]

—– Sour grapes for everyone!

[Author]

Posts