Turley Muller

Looks Like We're Still a BlackBerry Nation

iPhone doesn't compete in all the same market segments that RIM does. RIM has much larger potential market, due to diverse line of models as well as being available at almost all carriers.

An interesting way to assess which firm is beating the competiton, one an segment the markets along an axis of product attributes that consumers base their purchase decisions. Possibilities are price, function, carrier (AT&T and willing to switch, non-ATT & unwilling), Only in segments where RIM and iPhone are among the models considered for purchase would give the best representation of which models are the winners.

Consumers who won't pay more that $99, or won't switch to AT&T, who choose RIM would be excluded from the market share, the theory being, is that Apple could introduce a 99 model at another carrier one day.

I think what is important when thinking about RIM, is the growth of the enterprise segment RIM has that market locked up, so mostly increased sales there will come from growth enterprise users, meaning new users, not competitors users. Certainly that market growth has slowed. The consumer market is the area up for grabs, and the primary source of growth for both firms.

Will the iPhone Be Taken by Storm?

On Nov 26 07:11 PM TimboM wrote:

> Good One lcpcp - you'll need that removable battery for when your
> BlackBerry running multiple applications freezes and that's the only
> way to restart it. ..........

Timbo- LOL- exactly! I remember having to do that.

A lot! It's similar to when I have to rip the power cord out of the wall to reboot my PC after it freezes up so hard that hitting cmd-alt-del or holding the power button in does nothing.

Is Apple More Undervalued Than Other Tech Sector Stocks?

Andy's statement about the deferred revenue being recognized in 09 is correct. Zaky says CURRENT deferred revenue. "Current" means less than a year.

The iPhone revenue is recognized over 24 months, yet the portion that will be recognized within the next year is recorded in "Current" and the other portion is recorded in non-current .

On Nov 04 03:44 PM anon99 wrote:

> A couple of points:
>
> First off the deffered revenue is recognized over 24 months, not
> 12 months. So it will be recognized between now till Oct 2010(not
> till 2009 as Andy has posted). Also it isn;t a straightforward calculation
> wherein you can take the 3bil and assign it to 2009 and 2010.

RIM Faces a Critical Month As Apple Gets Tough

Timbo- $400 for each iPhone ? where are you getting that number? It's more like $640-$650 per iPhone


On Nov 01 08:34 AM TimboM wrote:

> One more thing....Apple will sell 13-14 milion iPhones in the 2008
> calendar year, 18 months after introduction of its first. They receive
> about $400 revenue for each. That means that they have built a $5-6
> billion smartphone business from the ground in less than 2 years.
>
>
> RIMM has been in the smartphone business for 5+ years and has sold
> more than 100 million phones Their fiscal year-ending 1-Mar-08 revenue?
> $6 billion.
>
> (For the purposes of revenue comparison I'm treating the Apple revenue
> in a a non-GAAP fashion to compare equally with RIMM).
>
> Free cash flow for RIMM $1.2 billion for year ending 1-Mar-2008.
>
>
> Free cash flow for smartphone portion of Apple? If you take the $3.8
> billion in Apple cashflow for Q4'08, you may derive an operating
> cashflow associated with the iPhone of $2.5 billion. If you assume
> conservatively that CapEx for smartphone division was $500 million,
> then the free cash flow is $2 billion, after 18 months of this division's
> existence.
>
> Furthermore, RIMM is getting nowhere near $400 for each phone (subsidized
> or unsubsidized) from carriers, and their past model of selling unsubsidized
> phones will most definitely not stand up to fierce and growing smartphone
> competition.
>
> Just think about where Apple will be in 2 years if these growth rates
> continue. They can still add features to a new model phone - a keyboard
> for those who want it, etc. Because their market penetration is so
> low already, look at the remaining potential.
>
> If I were an executive at RIMM these numbers would keep me awake
> at night, especially with a stock price chopped by 65%, which is
> just enough to make Microsoft come sniffing around.
>
> Is there room for both Apple and RIMM? Of course. Will RIMM look
> pretty in 2 years? I don't think so. Think Palm, SonyEricsson, Motorola,
> Borland, Sun Microsystems, etc.. I know that RIMM looks really great
> over the past few years, and that during that time it was the market
> maker. But if you squint you can see the future, and it ain't pretty.

Research in Motion: Unlike Apple, No Slowdown in Subscriber Growth

Jobs doesn't want to sell iPhones to low-income people at $99 dollars- That could tarnish the brand. Apple might not want every one to afford them, people pay a higher price for brands that represent status. What would think would happen if Rolex, Armani, Tiffany were sold at Wal-mart? Or even Macs or iPhones? Nobody would buiy them. Hurt Louis Vutton with the knock offs sales of the authetic were hurt. Apple doesn't need to sell to everyone.. margins are very high and sales are good. ROIC is very high, investors can't complain to Apple the stock got ahead of it's self. Eventually I bet, there will be a cheap iPhone (probably a iRing or iCall ) like the iPod shuffle, but it will so stripped down that it won't cannibalize the iPhone.
the iPhone

Research in Motion: Unlike Apple, No Slowdown in Subscriber Growth

Could be cutting back orders because Apple is planning to release a 2nd generation iPhone and new device will cannibalize the old one?

Certainly, it's well know that Apple is likely to release a new iPhone in the not too distant future, meaning that sales could slow because nobody wants to buy and new device comes out right afterwards. Many people tell me they are waiting for one with 3G. Could be rumors about a price cut is because a new device is coming out and Apple has to shore up the price points.


There's no confirmation of cutbacks, just hearsay coming from component suppliers. They are numerous suppliers and many inputs, and likely for some parts Apple users several manufactures. - and most inputs are commodities and can be used in many devices, not just specific to an iPhone.

Hence, input makers on the other side don't have a full perspective of Apple's supply chain and distribution. And knowing Apple, you know they try to keep everyone out of the loop. It's probably speculation.

It's very possible that cutbacks are that high, but can't take it as confirmed fact.

It's possible that the cutbacks are not iPhones, iPod Touches, bc they share the same components excepts for the wireless radio. There are only two suppliers for it.

Apple could have switched suppliers thus ending orders with current ones.

Possible that Apple s squeezing suppliers. Cutting back on suppliers when they have a glut, adding pressure to slash prices. Apple could then procure later at a much lower price. Likely not, but can't rule it out.

Apple is very secretive and calculated. Analyst don't are clueless to Apple's doings, they always way off on their earnings estimates.

We'll know for sure eventually, but now one can only speculate,