thompson

Goldman Raises Apple's Price Target on 3G iPhone Launch

@samij-

You are failing to distinguish between the "cell phone" market, in which Apple barely registers, and the "smart phone" market, in which they are serious competitors, and may soon be dominating.

The smart phone market is much much smaller than the general cell phone market, but as we move into the future, the smart phone market is going to undergo tremendous growth. Apple's iPhone will be leading that growth. They may never rival the unit sales of the cell phone Giants, but in terms of revenue and/or profit, Apple is going to be very big.

Thompson

Monday AM: More Cautious Analyst Notes on Apple

Thomas,

Apple won't provide specific enough answers to any questions. Believe me, the phone has been picked up and questions have been asked. But Apple is notoriously mum on issues like this. They like the results each quarter to speak for themselves. And the results will be speaking volumes again this quarter.

Long and strong AAPL,
Thompson

AT&T CEO Promises 3G iPhone Soon - Will it Freeze Demand?

Larry,

What Wall Street analysts, and apparently bloggers like you as well, don't realize is that the average consumer rarely, if ever, hears ANY of this stuff. They only know what they see on the commercials and what their friends show off. Suppose you stand in front of an Apple store and take a poll on the following question: "When will Apple have a 3G iPhone available for sale." I would wager that the majority of the responses will be: "What's 3G"?

I mean seriously, a lot of people are flocking to the iPhone based upon its strengths, and they have no clue about its weaknesses. For those of us that DO know about 3G and the iPhone's lack thereof, we were pretty much already assuming that the 3G version was imminent. I didn't need the AT&T CEO to tell me that.

My conclusion is that this "revelation" about the 3G iPhone won't put a damper on sales at all.

Thompson

Apple's Leopard Not as Error Free as It Should Be

Yes, it was your article. I didn't think it necessary to specify which article nor precisely when it happened, because you got blasted enough at the time. It was enough to (correctly) observe that this "misleading title" thing has happened at least twice now at Seeking Alpha.


< Also, I suggest looking at this guy's bio:
Additionally, Thomas Hawk is the Chief Evangelist for the Photo Sharing Site Zooomr.>

Yes, I noticed the implied relationship in his article, when he referred to the CEO as "our CEO". That pretty well provides motivation for his angle, but it doesn't excuse the bogus title.

Thompson

Apple's Leopard Not as Error Free as It Should Be

When I saw the title of the article, I clicked on the link expecting to find a description of a number of bugs (aka "errors") inherent to the Leopard operating system. What I found was a description of one incompatibility issue that was identified as a failure on Adobe's part to update their Flash software.

Now, I am not one to belittle the importance of the failure described. The author made it clear that this was a major issue for him, and no doubt it will be so for some (uncounted) others as well. It is fine to draw some attention to this so that others might be spared some trouble.

But look again at the title. What "error" of Leopard is even mentioned in the article? Gads, what is up with either authors or editors these days? (Another article at Seeking Alpha earlier this year drew fire for a similar misleading title problem, and the author first blamed the editor and then blamed the respondents for caring about the title to begin with. "It's only a title... ignore it and read the article." ) Did anyone go to Journalism school? Titles actually matter and should match the subject. They set the tone of the article, and the tone is a strong tool of writers. Say it again with me: "Titles actually matter and should match the subject."

Thompson

Over-Hyped Apple Has No Real Value

Don't give you flak about the title?

Unless I misunderstand the point of this forum, this is the place where we are supposed to provide our opinions, some of which are "flak". We'll give our "flak" here about anything we want, within reasonable limits (keeping it clean and on-topic). The title of any article, which sets the tone from the get-go, is most definitely on-topic. If you don't think so, then back to J-school with you. With that in mind...

The title of this article is clearly out of whack with the content, not to mention reality. If I were you, I'd be pretty pissed at an editor that takes it upon themselves to modify your title into something so whacky... apparently just to add more spice and bring the reader's attention.

Well... it worked. You guys got our attention now (most of it negative). It's up to you and your editor to determine who takes the heat. It would be nice if someone at SeekingAlpha said something as simple as "Yes, you guys are right, the title is a bit off-kilter." Or, just fix it back to what you originally intended. I am quite sure that someone there has the guts and/or integrity to admit a boo-boo and fix it?

Thompson

Over-Hyped Apple Has No Real Value

For such a long, supposedly detailed, treatment of Apple's future fortunes (and threfore its current valuation) you sure didn't spend much time actually talking about the products that will be driving the fortunes. In fact, the few sentences in which you managed to mention the products are ultimately referred to as a digression! Quote:

"Yes, the iPod is a nifty device from everything I hear, but that is Apple's only real successful product launch in their twenty-five years in business. The iPhone hadn't been out three months when they had to cut the price to move units - it is far too early to call the iPhone a success, but I digress… focus on the quantitative side of things."

Don't you get it? Everything ELSE is the digression! It is OK to begin with premises and assumptions, but they should be based on the profit drivers (have you heard of the Macintosh?) as opposed to being pulled out of some dark smelly place.


Thompson

The Impact of Apple's iPhone on the UK Market

As Tommo_UK and hollsam have already said, your 12 month premise is bogus. You not only miss out on 6 months, but it is the most important 6 months, including another back-to-school session and another Xmas, not to mention (probably) Asia sales and increasing interest in the iPhone worldwide. But I can hardly blame you. Over 90% of the articles I've seen have this detail wrong, although most make the mistake of thinking Apple was targeting 10 Million sold "during" CY2008 as opposed to "by the end of" CY2008.

Don't journalists research the actual sources of information anymore, or do they just build off of their impressions after reading other opinion pieces, propagating (and magnifying) errors along the way.

I think that in your next blog, you should come clean about your error, rework your thesis, and publish your new thoughts. Otherwise, your integrity will be called into question.