6 ms·

Where does the author say that “Apple wins again”?! I’m a bit befuddled by your interpretation of the article which seems to be mostly based on your prejudices

by ugh 16y ago

Where does the author say that “Apple wins again”?! I’m a bit befuddled by your interpretation of the article which seems to be mostly based on your prejudices about the author. Apple is actually growing faster than Microsoft and it is not in any way strange that Apple, as a hardware and software company, has worse margins than Microsoft, that has always been the case. Here is an illustrative chart, showing all that: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-apple-revenue-income-2010-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsoft-ap... The article just reports those facts and includes the author’s prediction that Apple’s earnings will overtake Microsoft’s soon, probably in the next quarter. That’s not at all unreasonable or unrealistic.

ericmsimons 16y ago
Nice chart - it makes me sad to see Microsoft getting rocked by Apple though :( Hopefully Kinect, Win7 & phone will keep them neck in neck with Apple.
kenjackson 16y ago
But it is typical Siegler. He had a post comparing MS revenue against Apple revenue talking about how Apple had surpassed MS revenue -- completely ignoring the fact that you generally don't compare revenue across industries, for example, Ford makes nearly double the revenue of Apple. But I do think Apple does stand a good chance to surpass MS. But I do think the consumer space is also a fickle one, especially the phone market. If they do one release of a "meh" phone or tablet, and Android progresses, they could see their profits literally cut in half in a year (see Sony for how you go from +$2B to -$2B in one year).
- ugh 16y ago
  People compare Microsoft and Apple. They just do. (See: Chart I linked to.) That’s not in any way typical of Siegler. And his prediction is also nothing special at all. It’s just wrong to attack this particular author about this particular question. It’s not typical Siegler. It’s typical many people. Siegler holds a common position on this particular issue. The popular trope that Siegler is defending Apple despite obvious evidence to the contrary which the first commenter seems to be alluding to is certainly not true when it comes to this particular issue. (It is true on other occasions but not this time.)
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I'm not saying Siegler is unique. There is a whole cottage industry of people who compare Apple to MS about things that have no merit. Like I said before, comparing revenue across industries is just stupid. It makes no sense. But there are some, like Siegler, who will do it. Of those, it is typical of them, and Siegler is in that class. There's an old saying that if you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you're reading. Lets look at the title of the story for when Apple released their earnings, "Apple’s Insane Q1 ’11: $26.7 Billion Revenue, $6 Billion Profit; 7.33 Million iPads, 16.24" He's just an obvious hack. But it gets page views. I think he probably makes a decent living doing it. No complaints about that. But I do think that if you are actually getting news from him, you're getting it from the Fox News of the tech sector. John Gruber is even a little embarrassed at how obvious his bias is.
    - ugh 16y ago
      But Siegler is comparing profits, first and foremost. He doesn’t say to look only at the revenue, he clearly recognizes the importance of profits. I could understand you if he had completely ignored profits, but he did not. Profits were the whole point of this article and it’s completely reasonable to compare profits between Apple and Microsoft. (Isn’t the whole premise of this continued horse race coverage that the revenue milestone doesn’t really count and that you still have to look at how profits develop?) Oh, and Apple’s Q1 earnings are actually insane. I don’t know how you could find fault with that particular headline. I think no one could dispute that Apple’s Q1 results were extremely impressive. Can’t we attack people for what they actually say, not for what we think they are saying?
      - kenjackson 16y ago
        If Apple's profits were insane, and Microsoft's higher -- what does that make Microsoft's revenue? How about when MS had even higher profits last year... MG had no article about the "insane" MS profits. And he NEVER says that revenue don't count. When Apple surpassed MS in revenue he says, and I quote, "Naturally, it’s important to note that Microsoft still has a lead in profit, $5.41 billion to $4.31 billion, but that’s because one is mainly a software maker (huge margins), while the other is mainly a hardware maker (lower margins)." So lets be clear, he's saying that earnings need a qualifier due to margins (which is absurd in itself), but he NEVER NEVER says anything about revenue models not being comparable given that Apple is a hardware company and MS is a software company. Do you know who makes more revenue than Apple -- HP, yet MG has never mentioned another hardware company in his revenue posts. I think you'd have to blind to see how MG selectively omits certain key facts from his "articles", in order to create a specific pro-Apple anti-MS spin.
- true_religion 16y ago
  There's a lot more overlap between Apple and Microsoft than between Apple and Ford. Previously you could argue that Apple was purely a hardware company because they bundled their OS and software with Mac hardware, and Microsoft was purely a software company because they didn't but recently the lines have blurred. Apple, like Microsoft, backs the creation of consumer devices for hardware that they did not invent nor own (e.g. the Zen vs the iPod). Microsoft also is now selling software bundled solely with hardware---the Kincet, and the Xbox---taking a page out of Apples book. When it comes to software/hardware hardly anyone competes with a company that exists in a proper set of their own industries. For example, Sony is competing with Microsoft when it comes to consumer entertainment hardware (Xbox/Playstation), but they're competing with Amazon when it comes to eBook readers and Apple when it comes to portable music players. Sure Ms and Apple are not identical companies but they are worth comparing.
brudgers 16y ago
Apple may be able to sustain their growth despite aging product lines, continued smartphone commoditization, and increasing competition in slates over the coming year. But there's nothing in the article which supports such a view. Being a hardware manufacturer may be a reason for lower margins, but its not an excuse for lower profits. And using the difference of $70 billion dollars in market cap as a some sort of justification for Apple's ability to continue to grow just doesn't make sense. The heart of Siegler's prediction is the contention that Microsoft's profits will drop more than Apple's next quarter - the article contains no basis for this. Apple just had it's best quarter ever at $6 billion. Microsoft just did better than $6 billion in the quarter for the second year in a row. Microsoft's worst quarter last year was almost equal to Apple's second best quarter ever. Essentially, Siegler's prediction is as sound as the idea that the curve determines Apple's profits.
- ugh 16y ago
  “Being a hardware manufacturer may be a reason for lower margins, but its not an excuse for lower profits.” ? Look, Siegler is a journalist, not an analyst. He says “Apple has grown faster than Microsoft in the past which means that if nothing changes, they are going to overtake Microsoft’s profits sooner or later.” That’s a perfectly reasonable but not very well supported position, perfectly appropriate if you write for a tech blog. Your objections are reasonable but sort of miss the point. That one liner comment of yours was just unnecessary. You should have posted your response to me instead, that would have been much more informative.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    >"Apple has grown faster than Microsoft in the past which means that if nothing changes, they are going to overtake Microsoft’s profits sooner or later." Not only is Siegler not an analyst, he is not a logician either. Growth is a measure of the rate of change. Were there to be no change, there would be no growth and Microsoft's profits would continue to be greater than Apple's for so long as there was no change. Siegler's shortcoming as journalist is not a tendency to poorly support his arguments, it is the utter lack of an argument in the first place. The piece is solely an apology for Apple. That this is appropriate for a tech blog, does not excuse the fact that Siegler wrote another piece of Apple fluff.

by ugh 16y ago

ericmsimons 16y ago

Nice chart - it makes me sad to see Microsoft getting rocked by Apple though :( Hopefully Kinect, Win7 & phone will keep them neck in neck with Apple.

kenjackson 16y ago

But it is typical Siegler. He had a post comparing MS revenue against Apple revenue talking about how Apple had surpassed MS revenue -- completely ignoring the fact that you generally don't compare revenue across industries, for example, Ford makes nearly double the revenue of Apple. But I do think Apple does stand a good chance to surpass MS. But I do think the consumer space is also a fickle one, especially the phone market. If they do one release of a "meh" phone or tablet, and Android progresses, they could see their profits literally cut in half in a year (see Sony for how you go from +$2B to -$2B in one year).

ugh 16y ago
People compare Microsoft and Apple. They just do. (See: Chart I linked to.) That’s not in any way typical of Siegler. And his prediction is also nothing special at all. It’s just wrong to attack this particular author about this particular question. It’s not typical Siegler. It’s typical many people. Siegler holds a common position on this particular issue. The popular trope that Siegler is defending Apple despite obvious evidence to the contrary which the first commenter seems to be alluding to is certainly not true when it comes to this particular issue. (It is true on other occasions but not this time.)
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I'm not saying Siegler is unique. There is a whole cottage industry of people who compare Apple to MS about things that have no merit. Like I said before, comparing revenue across industries is just stupid. It makes no sense. But there are some, like Siegler, who will do it. Of those, it is typical of them, and Siegler is in that class. There's an old saying that if you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you're reading. Lets look at the title of the story for when Apple released their earnings, "Apple’s Insane Q1 ’11: $26.7 Billion Revenue, $6 Billion Profit; 7.33 Million iPads, 16.24" He's just an obvious hack. But it gets page views. I think he probably makes a decent living doing it. No complaints about that. But I do think that if you are actually getting news from him, you're getting it from the Fox News of the tech sector. John Gruber is even a little embarrassed at how obvious his bias is.
  - ugh 16y ago
    But Siegler is comparing profits, first and foremost. He doesn’t say to look only at the revenue, he clearly recognizes the importance of profits. I could understand you if he had completely ignored profits, but he did not. Profits were the whole point of this article and it’s completely reasonable to compare profits between Apple and Microsoft. (Isn’t the whole premise of this continued horse race coverage that the revenue milestone doesn’t really count and that you still have to look at how profits develop?) Oh, and Apple’s Q1 earnings are actually insane. I don’t know how you could find fault with that particular headline. I think no one could dispute that Apple’s Q1 results were extremely impressive. Can’t we attack people for what they actually say, not for what we think they are saying?
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      If Apple's profits were insane, and Microsoft's higher -- what does that make Microsoft's revenue? How about when MS had even higher profits last year... MG had no article about the "insane" MS profits. And he NEVER says that revenue don't count. When Apple surpassed MS in revenue he says, and I quote, "Naturally, it’s important to note that Microsoft still has a lead in profit, $5.41 billion to $4.31 billion, but that’s because one is mainly a software maker (huge margins), while the other is mainly a hardware maker (lower margins)." So lets be clear, he's saying that earnings need a qualifier due to margins (which is absurd in itself), but he NEVER NEVER says anything about revenue models not being comparable given that Apple is a hardware company and MS is a software company. Do you know who makes more revenue than Apple -- HP, yet MG has never mentioned another hardware company in his revenue posts. I think you'd have to blind to see how MG selectively omits certain key facts from his "articles", in order to create a specific pro-Apple anti-MS spin.
true_religion 16y ago
There's a lot more overlap between Apple and Microsoft than between Apple and Ford. Previously you could argue that Apple was purely a hardware company because they bundled their OS and software with Mac hardware, and Microsoft was purely a software company because they didn't but recently the lines have blurred. Apple, like Microsoft, backs the creation of consumer devices for hardware that they did not invent nor own (e.g. the Zen vs the iPod). Microsoft also is now selling software bundled solely with hardware---the Kincet, and the Xbox---taking a page out of Apples book. When it comes to software/hardware hardly anyone competes with a company that exists in a proper set of their own industries. For example, Sony is competing with Microsoft when it comes to consumer entertainment hardware (Xbox/Playstation), but they're competing with Amazon when it comes to eBook readers and Apple when it comes to portable music players. Sure Ms and Apple are not identical companies but they are worth comparing.

brudgers 16y ago

Apple may be able to sustain their growth despite aging product lines, continued smartphone commoditization, and increasing competition in slates over the coming year. But there's nothing in the article which supports such a view. Being a hardware manufacturer may be a reason for lower margins, but its not an excuse for lower profits. And using the difference of $70 billion dollars in market cap as a some sort of justification for Apple's ability to continue to grow just doesn't make sense. The heart of Siegler's prediction is the contention that Microsoft's profits will drop more than Apple's next quarter - the article contains no basis for this. Apple just had it's best quarter ever at $6 billion. Microsoft just did better than $6 billion in the quarter for the second year in a row. Microsoft's worst quarter last year was almost equal to Apple's second best quarter ever. Essentially, Siegler's prediction is as sound as the idea that the curve determines Apple's profits.

ugh 16y ago
“Being a hardware manufacturer may be a reason for lower margins, but its not an excuse for lower profits.” ? Look, Siegler is a journalist, not an analyst. He says “Apple has grown faster than Microsoft in the past which means that if nothing changes, they are going to overtake Microsoft’s profits sooner or later.” That’s a perfectly reasonable but not very well supported position, perfectly appropriate if you write for a tech blog. Your objections are reasonable but sort of miss the point. That one liner comment of yours was just unnecessary. You should have posted your response to me instead, that would have been much more informative.
- brudgers 16y ago
  >"Apple has grown faster than Microsoft in the past which means that if nothing changes, they are going to overtake Microsoft’s profits sooner or later." Not only is Siegler not an analyst, he is not a logician either. Growth is a measure of the rate of change. Were there to be no change, there would be no growth and Microsoft's profits would continue to be greater than Apple's for so long as there was no change. Siegler's shortcoming as journalist is not a tendency to poorly support his arguments, it is the utter lack of an argument in the first place. The piece is solely an apology for Apple. That this is appropriate for a tech blog, does not excuse the fact that Siegler wrote another piece of Apple fluff.