Technology Stocks | Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: slacker711 who wrote (113309)8/9/2012 10:55:05 PM
From: southtech6 Recommendations   of 117522
 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: slacker711 who wrote (113314)8/10/2012 1:22:50 AM
From: Sam2 Recommendations   of 117522
 
Quite smooth: Samsung actually sold 1/10 of the 2 million Galaxy Tabs it claimed in 2010

By Daniel Eran Dilger

Published: 11:32 PM EST (08:32 PM PST)
appleinsider.com 










Samsung's secret sales data, exposed in court filings, show that the company only sold 262,000 Galaxy Tab units in 2010, rather than the 2 million units it claimed to have.

Samsung made global headlines in November 2010 after bragging it had sold 600,000 Galaxy Tabs in its first month. It later claimed to have shipped 2 million of its tablet devices by the end of 2010, saying sales were "faster than expected."

Market research groups, including Strategy Analytics, Gartner and IDC, jumped on Samsung's reported tablet figures to contrast them with Apple's iPad and to suggest Android was winning significant market share in tablet sales.

Neil Mawston, a director at Strategy Analytics, declared at the time that "the Samsung Galaxy Tab was the main driver of Android success," noting that Android tablet shipments had jumped from just 100,000 in the previous quarter to 2.3 million in the winter quarter, almost entirely due to Samsung.

However, it's now clear that Samsung simply lied about how many tablets it was actually selling. Android tablets weren't successful at all, and Samsung's tablet sales weren't driving anything.

Quite Smooth?

Samsung's lies first began to unravel early in 2011, when the company was forced to admit that the "sales" numbers it was reporting to the media were actually "sell-in" to fill channel inventory, not "sell-out" to actual buyers.

When asked for more information about how many Galaxy Tab units were actually being sold to end users, Samsung executive Lee Young-hee answered, "our sell-in was quite aggressive and this first quarterly result was quite, you know, fourth-quarter unit [figure] was around two million."

"Then, in terms of sell-out, we also believe it was quite smooth. We believe, as the introduction of new device, it was required to have consumers invest in the device. So therefore, even though sell-out wasn’t as fast as we expected, we still believe sell-out was quite OK."

Lee's comments were originally transcribed as "quite small," something that the company and its supporters quickly insisted was a mistake, saying that Samsung's actual tablet sell through to consumers wasn't "quite small," it was "quite smooth."

Steve Jobs quoted Samsung's "quite small" statement when introducing iPad 2, something industry pundits jumped upon as inappropriate and a misinterpretation of what Lee had actually said. As it turns out, however, Samsung's tablet sales were actually about a tenth of what the company was claiming.

Quite Small!

Samsung's real sales were clearly "quite small." The company's sales are now a matter of public record, and according to the company's own filings, it only sold 262,000 Galaxy Tabs in the winter quarter of 2010, not two million.

Then, in 2011, Galaxy Tab sales collapsed. Throughout the year, the original 7 inch model only sold 77,000, then 133,000, then 92,000 and finally 102,000 in each quarter, totaling just 404,000 units the entire year.

Speaking to analysts in October 2010, Jobs had predicted that 7 inch tablets like the Galaxy Tab would fail, despite the tech media's giddy anticipation of the "avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market."

Jobs: 7 inch tablets will be DOA

"We think the 7 inch tablets will be dead on arrival," Jobs said, "and manufacturers will realize they're too small and abandon them next year. They'll then increase the size, abandoning the customers and developers who bought into the smaller format."

Jobs was dead on accurate. Samsung subsequently introduced 10" Galaxy Tab models at Mobile World Congress at the beginning of 2011, but after Apple introduced iPad 2, Samsung returned to the drawing board, noting, "we will have to improve the parts that are inadequate. Apple made it very thin."

Samsung later claimed that its redesigned Galaxy Tab was thinner than Apple'd iPad 2, before being caught in the lie by InformationWeek and unable to back up its claims.

However, Samsung's sales data shows that the company only sold a total of 133,000 of those larger tablets in the second quarter of 2011, then 201,000 in the third and 245,000 in the fourth quarter.



Source: Apple v. Samsung court documents


Samsung still hasn't sold 2 million Galaxy Tabs

Both sizes of the "accused tablets" combined sold a total of just 983,000 in 2011. This year, Samsung's sales of all Galaxy Tab models have imploded, selling just 193,000 across the first two quarters of 2012. To date, Samsung hasn't sold even 1.5 million Galaxy Tabs in two years.

In contrast, Apple sold 7.8 million iPads in 2010, and went on to sell 15.9 million more in 2011. It has sold another 27 million in the first three calendar quarters of 2012, 17 million in the last quarter alone.

Samsung's gross misrepresentation of its tablet sales is not just a credibility problem for the company, but also fires a huge hole through the numbers reported by market analysts who blindly run with them.

Strategy Analytics, Gartner, IDC and others for example, assigned Samsung significant tablet "market share" back in 2010 based on its announced shipments of 2 million Galaxy Tabs, deducting this "share" from Apple to arrive at the suggestion that the iPad maker was "only" responsible for around 77 to 83 percent of the tablets being sold.

In reality, Apple has sold virtually all of the tablets users have purchased.

No market for 7 inch tablets?

If Samsung actually shipped 2 million 7 inch Galaxy Tabs in 2010, and it has since only sold 725,000 of them in the last two years as its documented figures indicate, there should be an unsold inventory of 1.3 million mini-tablets out there, somewhere.

Combined with the fact that the only 7 inch tablets that are known to have sold in any quantity at all are Amazon's Kindle Fire and Google's Nexus 7, neither of which is capable of selling at a sustainable hardware profit, the market appears bleak for 7 inch tablets that function like stretched smartphones.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Sam who wrote (113318)8/10/2012 1:26:26 AM
From: slacker7113 Recommendations   of 117522
 


That chart only reflects US sales (which were admittedly abysmal). Samsung's comments were always about global sales.


Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Eric L who wrote (113297)8/10/2012 4:31:37 AM
From: Maurice Winn5 Recommendations   of 117522
 
Eric L, were you ever employed by Nokia? How about as a consultant? [Actually, now that I ask, I think I recall you once making comment that you did consultancy work for Nokia, but I can't really recall]. Personally, I think it's irrelevant who worked for whom and whether it should be who worked for who and so on. Everyone has a complex set of reasons for what they post. As shareholders of QCOM, we "work" for Qualcomm so the difference is academic.

I don't see why companies should not pay people to post on Silicon Investor. In fact, I would like them to do so. We might glean some insider information, even if inadvertently. If you did work for Nokia, are you now free to provide insider information or did you sign a lifetime secrecy guarantee?

The SEC posted by PM to me in a sneaky attempt to induce an illegal Globalstar Memorial Day Massacre conspiracy, which I declined. It was only later that I realized it was most likely the SEC or FBI or some such. So we should expect anyone and everyone to be posting for any sort of reason. They should be encouraged to do so. It's all grist for the mill.

The disbanded USA Office of Disinformation for example will post things in Cyberspace to deceive everyone, including about them being disbanded. There was a proposal to make a market in possible terrorist attacks as the "noise" and market moves would show where there is actually activity [since some in the know would bet on the action to make some money on the move]. That was canceled as "poor form".

The USA worries about Huawei and ZTE building back doors for spying and Cyberwars into equipment supplied to the USA. Perhaps Qualcomm has built back doors into chips supplied to everyone. Whoever controls Cyberspace controls the world. Look at Visa trying to put the kibosh on Wikileaks for example.

It's a merry mix up "out there" in Cyberspace.

Mqurice

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (113320)8/10/2012 10:50:22 AM
From: DanD4 Recommendations   of 117522
 
As shareholders of QCOM, we "work" for Qualcomm
Wrong, they work for us.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: The_Net8/10/2012 11:19:26 AM
   of 117522
 
Analyst Upgrades: Broadcom, JDS Uniphase, and NVIDIA
Analysts upwardly revised their ratings on BRCM, JDSU, and NVDA
by Terri Stridsberg 8/10/2012 9:30 AM

Although BRCM sits on a paltry year-over-year gain of just 1.4% -- and has underperformed the broader S&P 500 Index (SPX) on a relative- strength basis during the past 40 sessions -- the stock was lifted to "outperform" from "market perform" and had its price target raised to $41 from $36 at Bernstein this morning. It should be noted, however, that while short interest on the equity has declined by about 6% over the past month, these shorted shares now account for less than 2% of the stock's available float. From a contrarian perspective, this could mean the security is unlikely to benefit from any short-covering activity in the near-term.

On the heels of reporting stronger-than-expected fiscal second-quarter earnings, NVDA has scored a slew of price target adjustments ahead of today's opening bell. Most notably, FBR raised its price target to $20 from $17, while Thinkequity, Wedbush, BMO, Susquehanna, RBC, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, UBS, Jefferies, and Barclays lifted their target prices by $1 to $2. Although the stock has climbed less than 10% during the past year, traders on the ISE/CBOE/PHLX are notably bullish, buying to open 6.40 calls for every put during the past few months

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Bill Wolf8/10/2012 11:41:16 AM
   of 117522
 
Courtesy Henry of TA board:

QCOM…After break of DT from Apr, has moved above both 50d and 200d MAs, challenging R around 61, with next R 63 and 66ish.

Message 28326133

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (113320)8/10/2012 11:49:24 AM
From: Jim Mullens   of 117522
 
mQ, re: Paid posters…………………

“…I don't see why companies should not pay people to post on Silicon Investor. In fact, I would like them to do so. We might glean some insider information, even if inadvertently….”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Agreed, with some major caveats, that could be extremely beneficial to individual shareholders. I believe in QCOM’s early days, when the “misinformation” was boundless we actually had a few QCOM employees post to counter that misinformation with Klein Gilhousen coming to mind. Of course, for “legal” reasons company employees posting under their “real” names is now “discouraged”.

The caveats-

+ It must be disclosed upfront in the article / blog that the individual / his organization(s) is being compensated and the amount of the compensation (in dollars / whatever else).

+ thus, information being provided can be viewed relative to that potential bias, good / bad.

+ Under fair disclosure rules, company employee posts should accessible by any interested party on a timely basis (perhaps also posted on the companies website).

+ if the info is derogatory in nature and widely distributed in the media, the offended company should be permitted to timely refute such in a prominent place within the same media and at no cost.

Quite appropriate to this discussion, Jon recently reposted Quentin Hardy’s 1996 WSJ hit piece on IMJ / QCOM and IMJ’s editorial reply. One wonders of Hardy’s motivation for authoring such a slanted piece of “journalism”, and his thoughts today of how he got it so wrong?


Message 28299569



IMJ Snip>>>

The real story here is that CDMA, an American technology, is engaged in a fierce international competition with the European technology, GSM, for the world's wireless markets. In only three
short years since standardization, CDMA has already been successful in the United
States, Hong Kong and Korea and is making rapid progress in Japan, China, and
elsewhere. A "personal attack" story may be gratifying to some, but the business
competition in digital wireless communication deserves a balanced report with all
sides fairly represented and honestly quoted.








Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: The_Net8/10/2012 11:52:54 AM
   of 117522
 
Dealing with Density: The move to Small-Cell Architectures (white paper)

http://theruckusroom.typepad.com/files/small-cell-wp-light-100111.pdf



Good resources of WiFi and its roles in the Mobile Internet Revolution

http://www.theruckusroom.net/

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Bill Wolf8/10/2012 12:36:15 PM
   of 117522
 
Nvidia: Targets, Estimates Rising on ‘Smashing’ FYQ2, Outlook

By Tiernan RayShares of Nvidia ( NVDA) are up 6 cents at $14.77 after the company last night beat fiscal Q2 estimates and offered a revenue view for this quarter comfortably ahead of consensus, helped by what appear to be share gains in graphics processing unit (GPU) chips versus competitor Advanced Micro Devices ( AMD), and by ramping sales of its “Tegra” processor for smartphones and tablets.

During a phone call following the company’s results, CEO Jen-Hsun Huang told me of his love for his recently acquired “Nexus 7? tablet from Google ( GOOG) (running on Tegra), which is expanding the tablet market, he insists, by making the category of a 7-inch tablet (as opposed to Apple‘s ( AAPL) iPad’s 10-inch screen) a viable category after many fits and starts for Android-based devices. (Samsung Electronics ( 005930KS) is holding an even next Wednesday at which some speculate it may introduce new tablets.)

This morning, price targets and estimates are going higher, as the Street extolls the quarter with language such as “smashing.” Reservations from the bears are either of the sort that last night’s victory is priced into the stock already, or that Nvidia must step up its game in smartphone chips or be struggle against Qualcomm ( QCOM). Nvidia is awaiting the arrival of its first Tegra processor with an integrated baseband, a necessary step to allow it to compete more fully for markets where smartphone prices are rapidly coming down. (Integrated products can save on the cost of combining discrete apps processor and baseband wireless chip.)

Hans Mosesmann, Raymond James: Reiterates a Strong Buy rating and raises his price target to $24 from $20, calling it “an old fashioned beat and raise quarter driven by remarkable momentum in the new 28nm-based Kepler GPU and an apparent inflection point in the Tegra3 cycle for Android and WinRT platforms […] With a number of ramps over the next few quarters including 1) Ivy Bridge (shares gains); 2) MacBook Pro launch; and 3) Windows RT where Nvidia will be on three platforms including flagship Surface device, we believe we will see a positive sentiment shift over the next few quarters as confidence in forward estimates should improve.” Mosesmann raised his 2013 estimate to $4.42 billion from $4.09 billion and raised his EPS estimate to 91 cents from 71 cents.

Craig Berger, FBR Capital: Reiterates an Outperform rating and raises his price target to $20 from $17. “Stepping back, bears say NVIDIA faces long-term GPU attach risks as Intel and AMD pursue integrated architectures, and that its wireless traction will be lackluster. Bulls say NVIDIA can be a major PC processor supplier if WoA ramps and with handset/tablet and enterprise opportunities too. We remain constructive on NVDA given its 2H12 Tegra tablet momentum, that it has $5 per share of cash with attractive valuations, that it remains highly profitable, and it is forward investing meaningfully in various growth initiatives.” Berger raised his 2012 estimates to $4.42 billion and $1 per share from a prior $3.98 billion and 65 cents.

Daniel Berenbaum, MKM Partners: Reiterates a Neutral rating and a $14 “fair value estimate.” “we could see growing more thematically constructive on the emerging potential for NVDA to benefit from some of the same cloud computing trends that have boosted INTC over the past several years – to wit, graphics processing power is moving to the cloud, NVDA has the leading architecture, and AMD is rapidly fading. That said, PC demand for GPU seems flattish, Quadro/Tesla have never fulfilled their promise, and mobility will likely continue to require large investments (and NVDA remains at a disadvantage in terms of critical mass).” Berenbaum raised his 2013 outlook to $4.4 billion in revenue and 97 cents EPS from a prior $4.2 billion and 84 cents.



Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company,

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.