5 ms·

> Earnings from the chip division, where Samsung competes against Toshiba Corp and SK Hynix Inc, dropped 28 percent to 1.15 trillion won as prices of dynamic ra

> Earnings from the chip division, where Samsung competes against Toshiba Corp and SK Hynix Inc, dropped 28 percent to 1.15 trillion won as prices of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips sagged, though a recovery in NAND flash chips, widely used in mobile devices, helped offset the weakness. The company said it expected DRAM oversupply to run on into the current quarter, but sees a tight NAND flash memory market. Intel had the same problem. They switched markets from commodity to monopoly. They're still around. I've noticed Samsung's ability to crush it since about March of last year and have been long Korean tech dominated ETFs to hedge my Apple stock - which I recently sold and subsequently shorted. Samsung is Dell with profits. It in combination with Android will destroy the iOS ecosystem. Here's to profits with openness. May the Microsoft strategy once again prevail. Apple was good while it lasted and it brought a lot of great tech forward by a few years. But they're out of screens to attack - just like Microsoft is really out of operating systems to attack. Disclaimer: I'm long Samsung, and will be long Google once more if the price drops further. You never bet against Linux in the long term. Just like you never bet against capitalism or democracy. Linux always wins.

clarky07 14y ago
While I think Samsung is a great stock and company, it's not like Apple is failing miserably. Shorting it here seems like a scary idea. They have 120 billion in the bank with a PE < 15. ex cash it's 10 or 11.
- confluence 14y ago
  My short was at 700. I'm up ~15% where they had a P/E of ~17. I'm not too worried. Apple was worth ~$700 billion and based on future growth prospects, market saturation, commodity competition and the squeeze currently being put on by the entire world's electronic manufacturing community backing Android on both the high/low ends and in terms of sheer volume (millions of activations per day) - I feel rather secure. Apple is being Netscape'd. No company can survive a full world supply squeeze with path dependent adoption. Even with their cash horde (which they are paying out because they literally can't use it) they can't directly confront hundreds of billions in global investment in electronics manufacturing through South East Asia chasing Apple's profits. If they do try - they'll be Solyndra'ed. Screens are now commodity (see lagging iPad). However, I've been thinking of closing up my short this week so who knows - I might buy. Investors who win are investors who think and always have the ability to change their minds, reverse direction and go all in if the fundamentals change. I don't really care either way.
- padobson 14y ago
  I'd agree with you if Apple had said they were going to use all that cash to force content providers to let them change TV. But seeing as Apple TV isn't trying anything ambitious, and they've decided to pay all that cash back to investors instead of disrupting new markets, and Samsung is clearly killing it as their chief rival, I also hold the OP's opinion that Apple has peaked.
  - clarky07 14y ago
    They aren't paying anywhere close to all that cash back to investors. They are paying roughly 1/4 of the new money they make each quarter. Total cash still went up last quarter by several billion. Apple TV may or may not be a myth, but they haven't announced anything yet so I don't think you can say whether or not it is ambitious. Samsung is killing it, but Apple still made more money this quarter (and every recent quarter). They are a 6-700 billion dollar company that is growing > 20%. With a PE of 11, how do you short that?
    - padobson 14y ago
      The last two years, Apple has done things that no company has done in the history of capitalism. It really is remarkable, and should be taught in history books. To say that they've peaked is not to say that they're going to fail or flop or anything like this, but I don't see them getting to a $1Trillion market cap without a major disruption in television. To say that they've peaked and that their stock is unlikely to go up is not necessarily a critique of Apple, but an acknowledgement of gravity.
      - clarky07 14y ago
        To me peaked seems to imply that they will be going down quickly, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Look at the amount of money they've been making, and then look at their market share. Macs, it's tiny. iPhones, where they make 50% of their profit, it's half of samsung. Yes they dominate in tablets, but that is a rapidly growing market. They can lose share and still grow there. It seems to me that the way the phone business is they don't really need to do anything special at all and they will make about 50 billion profit next year. That makes them undervalued in my opinion, just based on the fundamentals. Now, do I think they are going to a trillion market cap in 3 months, not at all. But I think at this level they are a much better buy than sell. If only for the dividend that is likely to be growing by large amounts. all this being said i agree that samsung is also a buy. They are selling huge amounts of phones, and they are also selling the components for lots of others (though i think i just read they stopped selling screens to apple maybe?)
sahaj 14y ago
My guess is GOOG at ~$200B is close to the lowest it will get. There are a lot of potential big revenue streams that are currently in development.
Caligula 14y ago
Linux always wins? I disagree! Desktop linux adoption is still in the low single percentages. I think your linking linux with democracy/capitalism is very random.
- confluence 14y ago
  Desktop linux was always completely stupid idea - it provided no benefits to either the manufacturer or consumer but it had all of the drawbacks of a switch with no forcing function available to push mainstream adoption (for example fundamental lack of OS/tools for consumers from another platform). However - Linux dominates mobile and it dominates commodity consumer tech. It already dominates back end server tech. My Android phone/tablet is indistinguishable from the iPhone/iPad. The forcing function for this was due to manufacturers needing an OS to run their mobile systems - since Apple ain't licensing - they are forced to adopt Android to scale out their high volume production. Linux dominates server tech because licensing fees kill business models and the vast majority of backend processing is mostly stable and needs to be horizontally scalable. The world is going to run on linux. And it'll be through the browser.
  - emilsedgh 14y ago
    Stupid idea? Initial goal of desktop linux was to provide a 'free as in free speech' desktop. It was not a stupid idea and has worked out just fine. It was so damn successful on that goal that at some point (early 2000's) we thought we could reach world domination without any heavy investment. I have a very functional, good looking, modern 'free' desktop. Disclaimer: Im a KDE contributor.
    - confluence 14y ago
      I don't understand what you mean. Ubuntu has so far lead the charge with the Linux desktop and even back in 2005 the user experience was atrocious (no fault of their own). The open source community should've just given up and transferred resources to FireFox, servers and the Linux kernel - because so far net investment in desktop Linux has had negative ROI. Just look at the example of Plan9 to see why.
lostlogin 14y ago
Profits with openness. How many phones did Samsung sell?

clarky07 14y ago

While I think Samsung is a great stock and company, it's not like Apple is failing miserably. Shorting it here seems like a scary idea. They have 120 billion in the bank with a PE < 15. ex cash it's 10 or 11.

confluence 14y ago
My short was at 700. I'm up ~15% where they had a P/E of ~17. I'm not too worried. Apple was worth ~$700 billion and based on future growth prospects, market saturation, commodity competition and the squeeze currently being put on by the entire world's electronic manufacturing community backing Android on both the high/low ends and in terms of sheer volume (millions of activations per day) - I feel rather secure. Apple is being Netscape'd. No company can survive a full world supply squeeze with path dependent adoption. Even with their cash horde (which they are paying out because they literally can't use it) they can't directly confront hundreds of billions in global investment in electronics manufacturing through South East Asia chasing Apple's profits. If they do try - they'll be Solyndra'ed. Screens are now commodity (see lagging iPad). However, I've been thinking of closing up my short this week so who knows - I might buy. Investors who win are investors who think and always have the ability to change their minds, reverse direction and go all in if the fundamentals change. I don't really care either way.
padobson 14y ago
I'd agree with you if Apple had said they were going to use all that cash to force content providers to let them change TV. But seeing as Apple TV isn't trying anything ambitious, and they've decided to pay all that cash back to investors instead of disrupting new markets, and Samsung is clearly killing it as their chief rival, I also hold the OP's opinion that Apple has peaked.
- clarky07 14y ago
  They aren't paying anywhere close to all that cash back to investors. They are paying roughly 1/4 of the new money they make each quarter. Total cash still went up last quarter by several billion. Apple TV may or may not be a myth, but they haven't announced anything yet so I don't think you can say whether or not it is ambitious. Samsung is killing it, but Apple still made more money this quarter (and every recent quarter). They are a 6-700 billion dollar company that is growing > 20%. With a PE of 11, how do you short that?
  - padobson 14y ago
    The last two years, Apple has done things that no company has done in the history of capitalism. It really is remarkable, and should be taught in history books. To say that they've peaked is not to say that they're going to fail or flop or anything like this, but I don't see them getting to a $1Trillion market cap without a major disruption in television. To say that they've peaked and that their stock is unlikely to go up is not necessarily a critique of Apple, but an acknowledgement of gravity.
    - clarky07 14y ago
      To me peaked seems to imply that they will be going down quickly, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon. Look at the amount of money they've been making, and then look at their market share. Macs, it's tiny. iPhones, where they make 50% of their profit, it's half of samsung. Yes they dominate in tablets, but that is a rapidly growing market. They can lose share and still grow there. It seems to me that the way the phone business is they don't really need to do anything special at all and they will make about 50 billion profit next year. That makes them undervalued in my opinion, just based on the fundamentals. Now, do I think they are going to a trillion market cap in 3 months, not at all. But I think at this level they are a much better buy than sell. If only for the dividend that is likely to be growing by large amounts. all this being said i agree that samsung is also a buy. They are selling huge amounts of phones, and they are also selling the components for lots of others (though i think i just read they stopped selling screens to apple maybe?)

sahaj 14y ago

My guess is GOOG at ~$200B is close to the lowest it will get. There are a lot of potential big revenue streams that are currently in development.

Caligula 14y ago

Linux always wins? I disagree! Desktop linux adoption is still in the low single percentages. I think your linking linux with democracy/capitalism is very random.

confluence 14y ago
Desktop linux was always completely stupid idea - it provided no benefits to either the manufacturer or consumer but it had all of the drawbacks of a switch with no forcing function available to push mainstream adoption (for example fundamental lack of OS/tools for consumers from another platform). However - Linux dominates mobile and it dominates commodity consumer tech. It already dominates back end server tech. My Android phone/tablet is indistinguishable from the iPhone/iPad. The forcing function for this was due to manufacturers needing an OS to run their mobile systems - since Apple ain't licensing - they are forced to adopt Android to scale out their high volume production. Linux dominates server tech because licensing fees kill business models and the vast majority of backend processing is mostly stable and needs to be horizontally scalable. The world is going to run on linux. And it'll be through the browser.
- emilsedgh 14y ago
  Stupid idea? Initial goal of desktop linux was to provide a 'free as in free speech' desktop. It was not a stupid idea and has worked out just fine. It was so damn successful on that goal that at some point (early 2000's) we thought we could reach world domination without any heavy investment. I have a very functional, good looking, modern 'free' desktop. Disclaimer: Im a KDE contributor.
  - confluence 14y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. Ubuntu has so far lead the charge with the Linux desktop and even back in 2005 the user experience was atrocious (no fault of their own). The open source community should've just given up and transferred resources to FireFox, servers and the Linux kernel - because so far net investment in desktop Linux has had negative ROI. Just look at the example of Plan9 to see why.

lostlogin 14y ago

Profits with openness. How many phones did Samsung sell?