Apple’s Cash Hoard
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
I just read the book about the making of the Segway "Code Named Ginger" and in it there is a Jobs quote where he says "Screw the lead times. You don't have a great product yet! I know burn rates are important, but you'll only get one shot at this, and if you blow it, it's over." http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html In my opinion this is how Apple operates for a lot of products where they are seen as innovative and the cash in the bank allows them to do this.
Every major software company hoards cash. MSFT, GOOG, APPL, everybody. So Apple's got a lot of cash... so what?
It's a lot of cash, but they've been doing well lately. :)
yes, apple offers quality products
yes, apple charges for premium
yes, apple has all the innovation working for them ....
But
Apple is a hit in western world only where people spend blindly .... look at the success rate of apple in 3rd world countries (where population is huge) - you will know that they are nowhere in top 10 --- surprised? let me give you an example:
ipod: a music player that is a huge hit in north-america is a super-flop product amongst south-asians!!! WHY? Why people who are known as a smartest consumers in the world don't buy ipods? the reason is not only the price of an ipod but also the lack of features in ipods ... the other mp3 player offer way more features than ipods ... and sound quality is as good as ipods .... So why one would pay more price for less features and get a same quality of output???????????? this is not me who is saying it, its a huge market research for all the premium products that has a good following in western countries but no takers in other parts of the world.
So the same product that we call "premium" in america (or western world) is labeled as a "rip-off" in other parts of the world where a person is called as a foolish for paying more price and getting same quality output but way less features...
I'm just saying that Apple charges quite a premium on their products.
So why then do you have a problem with Apple and not with Dell (or any other company)?
I'm simply saying that, in my opinion, they do not offer fair value, despite what other people say. I'm of the opinion that Apple would have to lower their price significantly before I would consider a purchase of any of their products. I'm saying that Apple's excessive extra cash comes from an extremely high premium on all their products.
But where you're making a mistake is assuming that value in the market is tied to Apple's internal costs of making a product. That an Apple laptop is not a good value, because its price is 30% above the costs to produce it.
That's not a useful definition of value. Value is the utility people get from a product, relative to the cost they incurred in obtaining the product.
Suppose a computer manufacturer produces a real stinking pile of garbage laptop. It's hard to use, the screen flickers, keys break, you name it. But it's half the price of the existing lowest cost product, and they're only making 1% gross margins on it. Is that a good value? If you value your ability to get anything done on it, probably not. What their margin was on it really doesn't matter.
Similarly, many people value the product attributes of an Apple laptop so highly (they see fewer bugs, ease of use, productivity, etc) that the fact that it costs so much more than what they could get elsewhere doesn't translate to a poorer value, because they get so much more out of it. Imagine a professional, for example, who is 10% more productive on a Macbook than a Dell laptop. Their time is worth $100 an hour. Suppose the price difference was $1k. In as little as 100 hours of work -- two weeks' of use -- they begin realizing better value from that MacBook than the Dell.
Now, those numbers are facetious, but the principle stands: it's quite easy for a more costly product with higher margins for the manufacturer to be a better value to the buyer than a less costly product from a manufacturer with lower margins.
(I think this tax policy is... unwise, but that's a debate for another time.)
btw, I read form Balance Sheet that cash and short term investments is 24bn. 35bn is total current assets. slight misrepresentation on reporter's side?