Posted on 01/28/2015 2:42:33 PM PST by Star Traveler
Apple delivered the greatest earnings report in history on Tuesday.
That's not hyperbole. Apple earned $18 billion in net income over the three-month period of October to December 2014. That's more than any other company has ever earned over a three-month span.
Apple earned those mind-melting profits thanks mostly to the iPhone, which is an incredible business.
Apple sold 74.5 million iPhones, up 46% from the year prior. The iPhone generated $51 billion in revenue, giving each iPhone an average selling price of $687.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
It’s a complaint about the company because those are the figures FROM the company, itself ... :-) ...
If one is calling the actual figures from the company Apple, “propaganda” ... then they’re complaining about Apple.
The article is not sourced from Apple. There's a lot more to the article than figures, and very little of it that's not entirely subjective.
Nobody that's used to having to parse through the kind of polemic that's found in most of the articles that get posted here could possibly miss that.
$200 down and then $225 a month for the next 2 years!
But "$200 down" was written in magic marker on the windshield.
No different in principle then selling a smartphone for $99 with a 2-year contract. If people aren't smart enough to figure the monthly payment into the total purchase price, what can I say.
Caveat emptor.
But that is not what he said. . . that is what an activist organization—which claimed to be a conservative organization, but actually is a fringe single issue organization whose thrust is about requiring business management to make all decisions for stockholder benefit only—who tried to get the Apple Board of Directors to justify spending any money on anything that was not aimed at making a profit for stockholders, after the stockholders had voted down his proposal by 97%.
Later that afternoon, in a question and answer session, a spokesman representing that organization tried to get Tim Cook to to take a stand against the stockholders' vote and make a commitment to do what the stockholders had just voted against.
The organization had just one share so they could come to the stockholders' meeting, make their proposal, and make waves about their agenda!
Like many other organizations, the organization then twisted Tim Cooks' comments to their spokesman into something that was something that was NOT said. They converted it into an inflammatory statement about "global warming" merely because Apple had spent $337 million on making their new installations all energy independent and self-sustaining by installing solar farms, and had joined Industry organizations such as ePeat, because they thought such expenditures were a waste of stockholder funds. . . ignoring that such efforta had actually saved more than that in energy Utility billing for those plants and even, in some cases, resulted in Apple SELLING power back onto the grid, and that best in industry ePeat ratings were a selling point for Apple products, and staved off bad publicity from organizations such as Greenpeace.
The representative of the organization kept badgering Cook to make a commitment to NOT spend any of Apple's stockholders' funds on ANYTHING that would not improve the stockholder's bottom line. . . so, after Cook told him that Apple makes many decisions that are not solely based on a profit motive, like include things in its products to assist blind people, or otherwise handicapped people, and improve the environment, contributing to education, etc., Cook told him that if he did not like those things, HE and HIS ORGANIZATION could SELL THEIR stock and go elsewhere with their investment. It was quite obvious to those observing the exchange that Cook was not talking in general about all stockholders or customers, but to that specific person.
You fell for the FUD being spread by that organization. . . who put out a press release, distorting what was said, taking the specific advice and making it general to advance their agenda. . . and since that was the SOLE source, the pundits picked it up and ran with it. Until others checked the transcript and yet others who at the meeting pointed out that the stockholders had already shot down the proposal that Apple NOT expend any money on supposedly non-profitable expenditures, that was the story. When it became obvious that Tim Cook did NOT make a general statement to all stockholders they were not wanted if they were opposed to "global warming" the story died a natural death, as the truth came out, and other articles told the truth of what was actually said. Unfortunately, not with the ballyhoo of the original hype the false narrative got.
This was quite well covered at the time of it happened. . . including the discovery of the perfidious press release. Lies get a lot more traction than the truth ever does. SHEESH!
Caveat emptor.
But if it's an iPhone and you aren't willing to believe it really is just costing you $99 you're a "hater".
Apple is the only place the figures come from ... there is no other source.
And yes, it was sourced to Apple ... here is the link they supplied ...
https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2015/01/27Apple-Reports-Record-First-Quarter-Results.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-apple-will-continue-to-demolish-expectations-2015-1
Follow the article links ...
And ignore the content of the article. I think not.
The article sources to Apple ...
Ahh yes the NCPPR Bogeyman Rationale.
I knew there had to be a brief, cogent, satisfying explanation.
Too bad you can’t come anywhere near one.
Is BusinessInsider part of Apple? That could explain a lot.
Be sure to let us know if it is ... LOL ...
I have asked you multiple times to use my correct Freepname, It is NOT "sparky." Insults get you nowhere.
You do not have a clue. Any one can get an iPhone 5C for ZERO dollars at a carrier now on contract. You still pay for it over the terms of the contract. . . the SAME as you are paying on your FirePhone. So what have you proved? Not a DAMN THING! However, Apple is not discounting the sale price to the carrier. . . except the price has gone down because the 5C has become an older model and has been displaced by newer models and is now a three year old model, so it demands a lower price. Apple sells it to the carriers for around $299 and they sell it to the customer for around $349 after all payments from the contract are collected.
As I told you the PRICE, which is not the same as COST in economics, for both your Firephone and the Apple iPhone on introduction were about $650. SOMEONE has to pay that PRICE whether you pay it up front or it is paid in installments, it IS paid by someone.
In the case of your FirePhone, AMAZON is willing to subsidize your purchase, along with the carrier, in exchange for the possibility that you will use it to buy more products through it from Amazon's online store. It is their direct connection to your wallet, and Amazon is hoping you will spend far more than the two to three hundred dollars they have invested in you by almost giving you your Firephone!
The Carrier is willing to subsidize your purchase by accepting a 99¢ downpayment and taking zero interest payments from you on the balance for what they paid to Amazon on the deeply discounted wholesale cost of the phone. . . and it is deeply discounted, Mad Dawgg, because they want your contract to provide cellular services.
Anything that started with a $650 MSRP and was cut to 99¢ on contract after only six weeks is DEEPLY discounted, it has to be. Trust me, I know. I've been in business too many years not to know.
Right now, on Amazon, the asking price for your unlocked Firephone is $449. Oh, and they don't hide the fact that it is an ANDROID phone. . . something you've apparently been trying to obfuscate.
By the way, I cannot find that AT&T offers any one year contracts at all. . . they discontinued 1 year contracts four years ago as far as I know. How did you get 1 year contracts for your Firephones? I searched AT&T's website for "one year contracts" and nothing came up to indicate they still have such an contract. Are you perhaps misunderstanding your Amazon Prime's 1 year term they gave you with your purchase which will renew during the middle of your two year phone obligation. I suspect with the level of reading comprehension you've demonstrated on these threads, that is the case.
Would you care?
It would be “news” to me if Apple owned a news agency or news website ... and that certainly would be a worthwhile revelation.
I would also be looking for the clarification at the bottom of the article that says, “Apple owns this agency.” ... just like article writers say when they own stock in a company they’re writing about.
Since I don’t see those disclaimers, I guess it’s up to you to show that Apple either owns this organization or has a stake in it ... :-) ...
I'm not the one claiming it was sourced from Apple.
I found your link to be far more interesting in the other sections. . . in the way the anti-Apple people are described to a T in their use of the techniques of propaganda described therein in almost every part.
Amazing how you can insult someone and denigrate solid evidence in one sentence. Good job.
The links in the article show it being sourced to Apple. All you have to do is click on them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.