Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Apple was NOT more profitable selling cell phones than Nokia in Q3

   (Nov 17, 2009 - 2:56 PM)

   Still trying to dodge the criticism by moaning about Gruber's lack of comments? Anyone who reads Gruber knows and understands his policy about comment on DF. If you need to make a comment you have this site and the rest of the web, or you can, you know, call or email him.
   
   Saying the same thing over and over and over, only more verbosely each time, isn't changing the fact that you are wrong.

2. Comment - After the Psystar verdict: Send in the clones

   (Nov 17, 2009 - 2:35 PM)

   Inextricable is not a synonym for what I presume you think is inexplicable. Look it up.

3. Comment - Apple was NOT more profitable selling cell phones than Nokia in Q3

   (Nov 16, 2009 - 6:23 PM)

   Joe, let's make this VERY simple. If Apple could legally implement non-GAAP tomorrow or even simultaneously (which, of course, they are doing), and they used both methods of reporting, would one method show greater profits because they are not deferred? Yes. Would those profits be greater than Nokia's? Yes. Does how you write the math on paper change how many iPhone were sold or how much money Apple collected? No.
   
   Can you agree to that?

4. Comment - Apple was NOT more profitable selling cell phones than Nokia in Q3

   (Nov 16, 2009 - 3:48 AM)

   What revenue did Nokia defer, Joe?

5. Comment - Apple was NOT more profitable selling cell phones than Nokia in Q3

   (Nov 16, 2009 - 3:44 AM)

   Your pseudo-analogy is hogwash. Yes, if you are Wall Street, you may primarily be concerned with the actual reported earnings but you are also going to look into and model deferred revenue. Any decent earnings discussion looks into the deferred revenue. However, that's irrelevant: any analytical firm, when comparing two separate complex businesses wuith different accounting methodologies is going to use their own methodology to try to create a "true" apple to apple comparison.
   
   Just because you do not have the information or skill to do that yourself doesn't annoint you with the authority to say someone else's attempt to do so is wrong. Gruber isn't saying it's cut and dry (he's saying that based on what is available to us, SA's conclusion sounds right) -- you are the one saying it is cut and dry by pointing to your admittedly crude and reductionist math that could fit on a single post-it as proof that someone else's work you haven't seen is wrong.