Apple's market cap falls below $500 billion as shares keep falling

Steve williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
This will no doubt make KeithW say "see, I told you so.":)

By Angela Moon, Reuters

NEW YORK — Apple's market capitalization fell below $500 billion on Thursday as shares of the world's most valuable listed company continued to slide after suffering their worst one-day decline in nearly four years.

Shares of Apple Inc fell to as low as $518.63 on Thursday, declining nearly 10 percent for the week. But for the year, the stock is still up more than 30 percent. At its peak in September the stock was worth $705.07.

Earlier in the day, research firm IDC said Apple's rank in China's smartphone market, which is set to become the world's largest this year, fell to No.6 in the third quarter as it faced tough competition from Chinese brands.

IDC's announcement comes a day after Apple's shares fell more than 6 percent on the Nasdaq, logging its biggest single-day loss in four years and losing $35 billion of its value, on concerns about rivals gaining ground in the mobile devices market.
 
I was going to post this yesterday but through Apple fans would stone me. :D

On a serious note, I feel bad about employees they have hired in the last three months. They all have stock options priced at the peak price and are now sitting there with worthless papers. I have been in that shoe before and it creates a terrible, have and have-nots culture of people who made a ton of money from old stock options and the newly hired. The ratio is small now of the new people vs old but if the stock keeps falling, it will create morale problem. It may also trigger attrition of the good employees who were waiting for more appreciation of the stock and now can see the end of that run and will sell off to retire, start another company, etc. Again, I don't think the effect is large but it is a major event as far as employees are concerned.

The above is why companies usually try to manage the stock price appreciation by constantly talking down their success and doing everything in their power to not way over-exceed analyst expectations. I suspect Apple will now do the reverse in trying to get the price back up with their end of this quarter announcement. Sales can be pulled in and conservative measures put aside to make the numbers shine again, hoping the stock price will improve.
 
Wasn't the 1/2 trillion market cap insane to begin with?

I may be in the minority but when I see these numbers and read or am informed of the manipulation that goes into such I cannot help but wondering if we aren't all in a sand castle just waiting to crumble... Yet this casino seems to rule the world .. :confused:
 
I've said it before - in tech, fortunes can be made and lost very quickly. Consider the big five names in tech in 2012: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Amazon. Only Apple and Microsoft were founded in the 1970's, and only these two companies are not currently being lead by their founders. Google was founded in 1998 and is being lead by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Amazon was founded in 1994 and Jeff Bezos is still in charge. Mark Zuckerberg's parents hadn't even met when Apple was founded, and Facebook was only launched in 2004.

Just as the market giveth, the market also taketh away. Fail to anticipate the next trend or offer a substandard product, and you will go back down the hill just as fast. Just ask Sony - despite owning 1/4 of American media rights and the Walkman brand, they failed to offer a compelling alternative to iTunes and were wasting their time with MiniDisc instead. Their lead in TV screens has been eaten up by the Koreans, who initially lead on price but now lead on quality. Both Sony and Apple have a love for proprietary technologies. In Sony's case, the list is littered with failed attempts - Betamax, MiniDisc, ATRAC, Memory Stick, SACD, Blu-Ray (not failed yet but believe me it WILL fail).

But unlike Sony, Apple is far less diversified. Sony is in the movie and music business, sells TV's, DVD players, hifi products, and Playstations; they sell computers, tablets, and mobile phones; they sell cameras, make imaging chips, and even watches. As for Apple, 75% of their income comes from iOS devices.

The only reason they maintain their financial health despite their declining market share is because their margins on each device is so huge. Argue all you like, but your $800 iPhone is really a $500 phone with a $300 profit margin built in for Apple. If you don't believe me, ask yourself why Samsung has 26% of the market share vs. 16% for Apple, yet takes in less profit than Apple despite selling massively more phones. This is because people are willing to pay a premium for Apple products. iPhones are comparable to a mid-market Android product when it comes to specs, and they are roundly beaten by flagship Android products. The reason why Apple can get away with such crazy pricing is because of the halo of the Apple name.

Now I hope you realize that a halo is a very fragile thing and it won't take much to burst it. They have lost Jobs, and they seem to be doing their best to drag Apple's name through the mud with the silly maps debacle and all the frivolous lawsuits they are throwing around. In the meantime, the only market where Apple truly is the leader is in tablets.

Apple can't persist in not offering cross-platform software forever. Their answer to Google and Bing is Siri. Good luck with that, when Siri keeps giving nonsensical answers and is only available on Apple products when the competition is available to anyone with a browser. Their answer to Google Maps is considered a joke, and even then is only available on Apple products. iCloud and mac.com can only be used with Apple, but everybody can use Google Drive, Dropbox, GMail, and Hotmail for free. iMessanger only works with Apple, but everybody can use Google Talk and Skype. If their software offerings remain Apple-only, then their market share will decline along with their hardware sales. Failure to offer your services over competing platforms when your competition does is not going to attract advertising dollars.

Just look for yourselves how Apple is teetering. In the past, the launch of any product would see their share price go through the roof. Even myself (like most observers) expected AAPL to go way beyond $700 when the iP5 was launched. They have in fact refreshed their entire product line in September, and then went on to lose 20% in value since then. This is unheard of in Apple's history.

Right now Apple thrives on selling overpriced proprietary hardware with software which won't work with anybody else. The only reason they are so big is because of iOS. The writing is on the wall, really. iOS is declining, and will take Apple down with it.
 
You can disagree with Kieth, but he writes well :).

There are two other important new trends:

1. Android devices went past Apple in technology components. The whole success of Apple started with iPod having an exclusive with Toshiba on the smallest hard disk. Retina display played somewhat similar role. But now that the Android market has gotten a lot larger, and the last hope of being relevant in electronics industry by many vendors, there is a lot of attention being paid to supply them with the best and greatest. There is a massive spec push and with so many vendors putting out products, it will be very hard for Apple to cover all the bases.

BTW, watch Apple follow the Android market on offering phones with larger screens just like they provided the mini on the iPad.

2. The android tablet market has gone from a joke to almost real. It still needs another six months of bake time to get the app situation in order. Once there though, it is going to take hold just like the phones. And with cut throat pricing and subsidized devices in small form factors, this game is going to get a lot tougher.

Of course, this is not the beginning of the end for Apple by any stretch. But I am not seeing it get easier for them.
 
Interesting article from today's WSJ:

By ROLFE WINKLER

Whether Apple's AAPL -0.47% share-price plunge is justified comes down to one question: Is the iPhone maker a hardware or a software company? Right now, it is more the latter. And that is why the 22% drop in the shares since their September peak creates an opportunity for investors.



More on Apple

CEO Says Mac Production Coming to U.S.
Hardware's history is ugly, thanks to rapid advances in technology. Sony's 6758.TO +1.35% once-popular Walkman was made obsolete, its televisions commoditized. Neither scale nor manufacturing expertise protected Dell or Hewlett-Packard HPQ +1.14% in personal computers. The iPhone helped cause the share-price collapses of Nokia NOK1V.HE +6.43% and Research In Motion RIM.T -0.17% . The collective market capitalization of these five companies is just $75 billion today, according to FactSet. Apple's is seven times larger.

MI-BS892_APPLEH_G_20121206165403.jpg


And that is largely due to the secret sauce inside the iPhone, which isn't really a handset so much as a computer with software that makes calls—and plays music, offers games, gives directions, takes photos, provides Web access and more. Wrapped in a svelte yet sturdy hardware shell stamped with Apple's powerful brand, the iPhone 5 commands an average price well above $600 when excluding the subsidies some wireless carriers provide to customers. And the iPhone's gross profit margins are huge: about 50% for the fiscal year ending next September, estimates analyst Rob Cihra of Evercore.

Nokia's gross margins approached 40% in 2003, according to FactSet, but are now around 26%. For BlackBerry maker RIM, they are expected to fall below 30% for the year through February, down from a peak of 55% in 2006.

Just as their handsome margins were targeted by rivals, competitors naturally want a share of Apple's profit pool.

Enlarge Image

Luckily for Apple investors, the firm's software protects a sizable portion of its profits. Inside the iPhone is a mobile "walled garden" for which developers tailor their apps.

It is possible down the road that technology will enable all apps to be delivered over the Web, at which point smartphones may morph into low-margin boxes that merely distribute others' software—like PCs. But that is a long way off. For instance, Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg has said his company's biggest mistake was building its mobile apps with Web technology rather than using the code specific to platforms like Apple's. It has since reversed course.

The more immediate risk for Apple is that rival walled gardens catch up and undercut its ability to charge a premium for devices. Smartphones running Google's GOOG +0.07% Android system outsold iPhones by more than 3-to-1 in the year through September, according to Strategy Analytics, though part of that is due to the range of low-end phones running Android.

It is hard to say how much of a premium Apple gets for the iPhone 5 relative to comparable Android devices. But if it is 15%, say, and the premium disappeared, Apple's gross profit from selling iPhones in fiscal 2014 could be nearly 30% lower than Evercore's Mr. Cihra's current forecast, assuming no offsetting cost reductions. And earnings per share could amount to about $46 instead of $60.

While lower profits are a risk, lower volume growth for Apple looks like a certainty on the present course. The iPhone is now offered by most of the world's wireless carriers. After T-Mobile USA, announced Wednesday, and China Mobile, 0941.HK -0.79% perhaps next year, there won't be many high value wireless subscribers left to target.

The next leg of growth for the iPhone may be a more affordable device for lower-value subscribers. Apple decided to offer cheaper versions of its first mobile blockbuster, the iPod. And it has launched an iPad Mini. Such moves make sense when you consider that the ultimate power of Apple's business model is luring more users into its walled garden.

Already, the company has probably sold plenty of additional iPhones, thanks to its previous decision to offer cheaper iPods that got more users to put their music in iTunes. A cheap iPhone might draw millions of additional wireless subscribers into Apple's mobile environment.

In the end, these users tend to buy a new Apple device every few years to upgrade to the latest hardware and software. So any short-run hit to profitability from users opting for cheaper devices should be offset by new users that buy Apple devices every few years. The risk remains that rival products eat into Apple's price premium and its profit margins. Even Microsoft MSFT -1.03% finally has a respectable mobile operating system. But even if Apple faces tougher competition, its stock isn't very expensive.

A pessimistic earnings forecast of $46 a share for fiscal 2014 still means a nicely profitable business. Importantly, it also implies a share price multiple of just nine times—after subtracting the huge cash pile on Apple's balance sheet.

The handset business used to be hit-driven, with the sexiest device gobbling up the market only to disappear after a more popular handset appeared. The genius of the iPhone was to break this trend. Its proprietary software and revolutionary design has encouraged users to stick with newer versions of the device.

As long as Apple can keep its software leading edge—and avoid more mistakes like the maps fiasco that frustrated users—its recurring business should keep generating big returns for shareholders.
 
There is no bigger Apple fan than I, BUT I am confident there is someone out there (maybe a college student at the moment) who is every bit as clever/bright/creative as Steve Jobs and will come up with SOMETHING that allows that something to knock Apple off of it's pedestal. I have been around long enough to watch that happen to MANY (virtually ALL) large technology companies and it will happen to Apple.

They may keep this position of strength for quite some time but eventually, they will fall (but probably no where near as quickly as Keith_W would like :) )
 
Well, I just bought some more at 520, so we'll see :) It's a very cheap stock IMO.
 
audioguy there is no doubt that will happen. I am not so much of a tech messiah to predict what the next big thing is going to be, but there will be something. However, I think that the possibility of a new competitor coming from nowhere and growing to the size of Google is going to be highly unlikely. The reason - patents.

Just yesterday I was reading an article on the "matternet" - the basic idea is that you have a network of battery powered quadricopter drones delivering stuff that you order online. Say you need a blood transfusion with a rare blood type. The system finds what you need, but the problem is that the blood bank is 50km away, traffic is awful, and you are going to die. No problem - they load the blood you need onto the drone, it flies 10km to the nearest base station where a robot automatically swaps out the battery for a new one, then repeats its 10km hops until it arrives at your hospital.

As the system gets cheaper, more extensive, more robust, and payload capacity increases, it can be adapted for more uses. The book you order from Amazon might arrive on your doorstep in a matter of hours instead of a day; and you could check where it is in real time instead of spending the whole day at home waiting for the courier. You could deliver your computer to be repaired without having to take time off work, jump in a car, and drive to the nearest shop.

The problem? Patents. There are patents that cover long range wifi protocols, patents for 3G/4G networks, and countless others. Most new inventions by necessity build on the inventions of others. The "matternet" would not be possible if there were no existing 3G/4G networks, or quadricopters, or high energy density batteries, or miniaturized computers, or GPS. The fact that all these things exist means that technology like this is plausible.

In the past, companies would work together to share technology but we are now in a more litigious age where companies build up patent war chests to stifle competition. The most obvious example of an evil patent hoarder is Apple, but there are countless other smaller scale patent trolls out there. Lawyers are always good at finding pots of money. Once the fledgling "matternet" starts to grow, it will be hit by lawsuits alleging patent infringement.
 
Keith, companies have never worked together on patents. It simply has been the case that a small circle of attorneys and business people knew about such things. Now courtesy of Apple so many more know.

It was a major part of my job while at Microsoft to manage these problems. They were severe and required pretty clever techniques and tactics to get what we needed. Other companies like Apple and Google were mostly sleep at the helm. Apple was not a big target and Google just did search. As soon as they started doing phones, then they fell victim to land mines that were planted by decades.

Let me give you some old examples. The standard format for DVD and digital broadcast in US is MPEG-2. It costs $2.50 per copy to ship it for most the patents. Now imagine you let people download your software for free. Exactly how do you ship an MPEG-2 decoder in it? Answer is that you can't.

Follow up to MPEG-2 was designed. It was called MPEG-4 AVC that is used in Blu-ray and Internet delivery. It was going to follow the footsteps of MPEG-2. That was going to be deadly for us. But we had made some careful steps prior to its licensing being established. We had put in some of our patented technology in it. So when the time came for licensing, we had a seat a the table. With that seat, we convinced all the other companies to have the royalties be in the order of 30 cents with a maximum cap of a few million. If you shipped 100 million copies of MPEG-2, you would need to pay 250 M. With MPEG-4 AVC, even though it is far superior, the cost is about 1% of that! Don't ask we managed to convince all the other people at the table to agree to this :). But we did. And the whole world benefits.

The above though is just a tiny reform though. The rest of the world continued with companies getting behind closed doors, creating "standards" that they then made mandatory due to their market power and then everyone had to pay the high licensing fees. Meanwhile companies in the inside had cross licensing with each other so the final cost did not matter to them. The people taxed are the new guys: Apples, Google (sans Motorola), Microsoft, etc.

It is an ugly, dirty world designed to benefit the old guard.
 
Speaking of patents, seems big companies can partner for patents


Apple and Google making joint bid for Kodak patents, report says

by CNET News staff

Apple and Google might be opponents competing for smartphone and tablet customers, but according to a Bloomberg report they have joined forces to acquire Eastman Kodak's 1,000 imaging patents for more than $500 million. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the possible alliance in August. Previously, the Journal reported that Apple and Google were each leading separate consortiums to purchase the patents in the range of $150 million to $250 million.
Eastman Kodak, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, needs to sell the patents to help pay down a $950 million loan from Citigroup. The company said that it expects to exit bankruptcy in 2013. Court documents earlier this year revealed that the company valued its patent portfolio in the range of $2.6 billion.

Apple and Google were on opposite sides in another contest for high-stakes technology patents. In July 2011, a consortium of technology companies comprising Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion, and Sony bought some 6,000 patents and patent applications from Nortel Networks for $4.5 billion. Rivals Google and Intel reportedly began the bidding for the intellectual property, which included patents and patent applications for wireless, wireless 4G, data networking, optical, voice, Internet, and semiconductor technologies, at $900 million.
The digital imaging patents, which are relevant to cameras, smartphones and other devices, could help both Apple and Google who are engaged in numerous patent disputes. Apple has been embroiled in patent disputes with Samsung and other Google Android-based vendors. The joint effort to procure the patents could auger .......
 
That's smart. Because if they didn't buy, someone else would have and then chased them forever. Good use of cash sitting in the bank doing nothing...
 
As an aside, it's amazing to think how fast things change. 5 years ago, Kodak had a larger market cap than Apple. Engineers there were begging for them to commit fully to digital photography but the old guard couldn't see it.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu