Mobile phones & tablets thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

Yes, I had it with my N97 and Karen had it with her phone - which is why she ditched it for an iPhone. It was/is a fundamental flaw in the OS design and unbelievable that they'd not only ship phones in that condition but they'd have the same problem on multiple models.

---

Like I said, Nokia make good hardware :)

Apart from the under specced processors and poor build quality of the likes of the N96.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 555-04Q2

I have a BlackBerry 9800 and it has been brilliant. I'm not much of a nerd when it comes to the type of phone I have so I don't get what everyone is raving about with regards to the new iPhones etc. I've had over a dozen Nokia's and not one has ever given me trouble. The 9800 does have better features though and I am enjoying it immensly.

Just for interest sake:

Apple iPhone manufacture cost = $ 179
Retail price = $ 500
Profit = $ 321

Thats a rip off if ever there was one Apple!

---

RIM Blackberry Torch Slider manufacture cost = $183
Retail Price (MSRP) = $699.99
"Profit" = $516.99

According to this data, it looks like RIM is "ripping off" people worse than Apple. :D But with that said, I don't buy into the notion of "acceptable" profit levels on nonessential products.

The market determines value/fair price. If a product is (truly) "overpriced", then either it will not sell or it will not sell in sufficient enough numbers to justify its continued production. For years, Microsoft lost money on every Xbox unit that it sold. But I didn't hear any stories about consumers sending Microsoft checks to make up for that deficit. I believe the gaming division, and the associated devices, now make a profit. How much of a profit margin there is, I don't know. But again, especially when discussing nonessential products with an elastic demand, market demand quickly determines whether the product is overpriced or not. At least in the U.S., carriers get the phones at a discount from the MSRP and then sell them at a subsidized price. So if AT&T is selling the iPhone 4 for more than the Blackberry Torch (I don't know if they are or not), then it's because customer demand for the iPhone outstrips that for the Torch... because the data seems to suggest that the iPhone is cheaper to produce and also sells for less (at retail) than the Torch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

No one finds that just a tiny bit interesting?

---

Yep, I think it's pretty interesting.

I got a chance to read a few stories about the Microsoft/Skype deal last night. Most seem to think that this was a "must do" strategic move by Microsoft to counter Google and Facebook. It's difficult to see how Microsoft will make its money back on the deal, as the price paid was "rich", to say the least. Skype was set to do an IPO, and if I remember correctly, the involved investment banks had valued the company at around $3.5 billion. Google and Facebook seemed to have had an interest in acquiring it for around that price (3-4 billion) too. But Microsoft swooped in and paid what looks like a 100%+ premium to the assumed fair market value... and thus far, the market has given the deal a thumbs down (on the financials alone). From when the deal was announced through today's trading, MSFT is down more than the overall market.

On the flipside, some analysts are saying that it was more important for MSFT (longer term) to keep Skype away from Google or Facbook, even if they can't get the money losing Skype back to profitability, or they can't justify the price based on Skype's future performance. So Skype is a knife that Microsoft may not be able to make the best use of, but in the hands of Google or Facebook, it might have been used to stab them in the heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Yep, I think it's pretty interesting.

I got a chance to read a few stories about the Microsoft/Skype deal last night. Most seem to think that this was a "must do" strategic move by Microsoft to counter Google and Facebook. It's difficult to see how Microsoft will make its money back on the deal, as the price paid was "rich", to say the least. Skype was set to do an IPO, and if I remember correctly, the involved investment banks had valued the company at around $3.5 billion. Google and Facebook seemed to have had an interest in acquiring it for around that price (3-4 billion) too. But Microsoft swooped in and paid what looks like a 100%+ premium to the assumed fair market value... and thus far, the market has given the deal a thumbs down (on the financials alone). From when the deal was announced through today's trading, MSFT is down more than the overall market.

On the flipside, some analysts are saying that it was more important for MSFT (longer term) to keep Skype away from Google or Facbook, even if they can't get the money losing Skype back to profitability, or they can't justify the price based on Skype's future performance. So Skype is a knife that Microsoft may not be able to make the best use of, but in the hands of Google or Facebook, it might have been used to stab them in the heart.

---

A lot of people are talking about the 2nd dot com bubble building up. Now of course the purchase of Skype was to block Google, but it's still a way out offer, but it's still a way out crazy valuation.

Have you seen how much Apple is worth these days? Mewonders how long this little golden age is going to last before the bubble gets popped. Lets just hope you've not put all your AAPL's in one basket :)

That's not a dig at Apple either, I just think that the bubble has been getting bigger for a long time and we all know what happens to bubbles :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

A lot of people are talking about the 2nd dot com bubble building up. Now of course the purchase of Skype was to block Google, but it's still a way out offer, but it's still a way out crazy valuation.

Have you seen how much Apple is worth these days? Mewonders how long this little golden age is going to last before the bubble gets popped. Lets just hope you've not put all your AAPL's in one basket :)

That's not a dig at Apple either, I just think that the bubble has been getting bigger for a long time and we all know what happens to bubbles :D

---

I think you're right: a second dotcom bubble is forming. As for Apple, it trades at a (roughly) 16.5 P/E ratio. While Microsoft trades at somewhere around 10. But P/E's tend to be higher for companies with higher future earnings growth potential, and AAPL's earnings are growing faster than MSFT's. Google, for instance, trades at about a 19.5 P/E, while slower growing HP trades at about 10.5. The companies that boggle my mind are the ones like LinkedIn and Facebook, to name two. At a $50 billion valuation, Facebook's P/E ratio would be 125!!! See, that just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

BTW, using figures from the last fiscal year, if you valued AAPL with the same 10x sales/revenue valuation that apply to Microsoft's purchase of Skype, it would be priced at $650 per share! And if we used that same valuation for Microsoft, it would be priced at $625!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I think you're right: a second dotcom bubble is forming. As for Apple, it trades at a (roughly) 16.5 P/E ratio. While Microsoft trades at somewhere around 10. But P/E's tend to be higher for companies with higher future earnings growth potential, and AAPL's earnings are growing faster than MSFT's. Google, for instance, trades at about a 19.5 P/E, while slower growing HP trades at about 10.5. The companies that boggle my mind are the ones like LinkedIn and Facebook, to name two. At a $50 billion valuation, Facebook's P/E ratio would be 125!!! See, that just makes no sense whatsoever to me.

BTW, using figures from the last fiscal year, if you valued AAPL with the same 10x sales/revenue valuation that apply to Microsoft's purchase of Skype, it would be priced at $650 per share! And if we used that same valuation for Microsoft, it would be priced at $625!

---

The thing about Apple is that Apple products are by and large, luxury products and their market sector is always getting invaded so they're constantly having to make a new product which no one else is perceived to match and I don't see that continuing on forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

On the flipside, some analysts are saying that it was more important for MSFT (longer term) to keep Skype away from Google or Facebook, .

---

I think that's the key point here. Skype would have been a very good fit for facebook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

I think that's the key point here. Skype would have been a very good fit for facebook.

---

People forget though that Microsoft owns a portion of Facebook :)

1.3% which of course of a company that size is substantial, but not something they are going to base business decisions upon.