4 ms·

I don't know if the article has been edited since Gruber first read it, but there appear to be sufficient statistics to back up Gupta's assertions: > "Samsung

by polemic 14y ago

I don't know if the article has been edited since Gruber first read it, but there appear to be sufficient statistics to back up Gupta's assertions: > "Samsung had 30.3 percent of the smartphone market in 2012, up from 19 percent a year earlier. Apple's share was 19.1 percent last year, up from 18.8 percent in 2011." Gupta's general tone is eminently reasonable: > "That onslaught, coupled with growing uncertainty about whether the U.S. giant can sustain growth in coming years, has contributed to a 30 percent decline in Apple's stock since its September peak." I don't see a “Oh, how the mighty Apple has fallen” narrative - Gupta is commenting on the market's bet against Apple. If the market is really knocked off 30% of their value based on media scaremongering, you've got (a) a huge market failure, and (b) a sure bet in Apple. Gruber's only contribution to the discussion appears to be hand-wringing about the way poor old Apple is being treated.

simonh 14y ago
> Gupta is commenting on the market's bet against Apple. If the market has bet against Apple, how come Apple's market cap today is double that of Samsung? In what universe is pricing a company as being twice as valuable betting against it?
jonhendry 14y ago
"but there appear to be sufficient statistics to back up Gupta's assertions:" One of Gruber's points is that Apple never had the most market share in smartphones. So they haven't lost anything in that respect. But Apple had, and still have, most of the profits from the smartphone market, with Samsung coming in a distant 2nd, even now, at about half of Apple's iPhone profits. And the other vendors are losing money.
- polemic 14y ago
  Sure, but it's also largely irrelevant. Movement of stock price is the metric that Gupta's audience is interested in. Apple's current profit margin is already priced in - a reduction in profit (via an increase in margin, loss of market share, etc) is as good as a loss, from the investors perspective.
invisible 14y ago
You did not read the article adequately. Gruber points out that while Apple may have a lower market share (which was never an Apple goal), the profits it brings in far exceed Samsung. Furthermore, if the market share of Apple is going UP, how is it being described in Gupta's article as going down? Your post was basically all of the assumptions Gupta made without any contribution to the discussion.
- polemic 14y ago
  Gruber has only changed the terms of reference. The idea that Apples original aims anything at all to do with the current state of the smartphone business is laughable. Apple's stock price is not based on the relative success versus their original aim. It's very much based on the projected future success of the company. This is called spin. There definitely is a lot of crowing about "Apple's downfall" (which is certainly not true, and definitely premature), but Gruber reads more into the article than is really there. Tilting at windmills.
  - invisible 14y ago
    Here are some facts: - Gupta was not talking about the stock market for the entire article. - Business is about profits. - Gruber is talking about Gupta's article which says Apple is failing in mobile. - The stock market is basically sensationalism in monetary form. - Apple hasn't announced any new products and that is hurting it's stock. - Apple never announces new products before they are manufacturing.
    - polemic 14y ago
      "Gupta was not talking about the stock market for the entire article" Except when he refers to the drop in their stock price - the entire basis for the "Apple naysayers narrative". Unless you think the opinions of a few business writers knocked off 30% of their valuation instead. Like some sort of epic reverse pump & dump? Hardly. "Business is about profits." Gee that's deep. It's also deeply misleading. Current profit earnings and forecasts are what drives the stock price movement. The only way you or I can profit from Apple are by purchasing shares where those predictions are priced in. If their profit forecast halves regardless of their relative performance vs competitors, I'm going to suffer as a shareholder. "Gruber is talking about Gupta's article which says Apple is failing in mobile." And like I said, Gruber misses the point. "The stock market is basically sensationalism in monetary form." Ah, so you don't like what the sharemarket is doing, so you dismiss it as "sensationalist". Don't kid yourself, you're not kidding anyone else. And I'm not sure what the last two points have to do with anything, so I won't comment on them.

by polemic 14y ago

simonh 14y ago

> Gupta is commenting on the market's bet against Apple. If the market has bet against Apple, how come Apple's market cap today is double that of Samsung? In what universe is pricing a company as being twice as valuable betting against it?

jonhendry 14y ago

"but there appear to be sufficient statistics to back up Gupta's assertions:" One of Gruber's points is that Apple never had the most market share in smartphones. So they haven't lost anything in that respect. But Apple had, and still have, most of the profits from the smartphone market, with Samsung coming in a distant 2nd, even now, at about half of Apple's iPhone profits. And the other vendors are losing money.

polemic 14y ago
Sure, but it's also largely irrelevant. Movement of stock price is the metric that Gupta's audience is interested in. Apple's current profit margin is already priced in - a reduction in profit (via an increase in margin, loss of market share, etc) is as good as a loss, from the investors perspective.

invisible 14y ago

You did not read the article adequately. Gruber points out that while Apple may have a lower market share (which was never an Apple goal), the profits it brings in far exceed Samsung. Furthermore, if the market share of Apple is going UP, how is it being described in Gupta's article as going down? Your post was basically all of the assumptions Gupta made without any contribution to the discussion.

polemic 14y ago
Gruber has only changed the terms of reference. The idea that Apples original aims anything at all to do with the current state of the smartphone business is laughable. Apple's stock price is not based on the relative success versus their original aim. It's very much based on the projected future success of the company. This is called spin. There definitely is a lot of crowing about "Apple's downfall" (which is certainly not true, and definitely premature), but Gruber reads more into the article than is really there. Tilting at windmills.
- invisible 14y ago
  Here are some facts: - Gupta was not talking about the stock market for the entire article. - Business is about profits. - Gruber is talking about Gupta's article which says Apple is failing in mobile. - The stock market is basically sensationalism in monetary form. - Apple hasn't announced any new products and that is hurting it's stock. - Apple never announces new products before they are manufacturing.
  - polemic 14y ago
    "Gupta was not talking about the stock market for the entire article" Except when he refers to the drop in their stock price - the entire basis for the "Apple naysayers narrative". Unless you think the opinions of a few business writers knocked off 30% of their valuation instead. Like some sort of epic reverse pump & dump? Hardly. "Business is about profits." Gee that's deep. It's also deeply misleading. Current profit earnings and forecasts are what drives the stock price movement. The only way you or I can profit from Apple are by purchasing shares where those predictions are priced in. If their profit forecast halves regardless of their relative performance vs competitors, I'm going to suffer as a shareholder. "Gruber is talking about Gupta's article which says Apple is failing in mobile." And like I said, Gruber misses the point. "The stock market is basically sensationalism in monetary form." Ah, so you don't like what the sharemarket is doing, so you dismiss it as "sensationalist". Don't kid yourself, you're not kidding anyone else. And I'm not sure what the last two points have to do with anything, so I won't comment on them.