Apple, Samsung Accounted for 103% of 2012 Handset Profits

Status
Not open for further replies.

s3anister

Distinguished
May 18, 2006
679
2
19,060
37
Two firms accounted for 101 percent of Q4 profits and 103 percent for 2012.
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but I thought it wasn't possible to have more than 100% profit in a given sector. Typically, a manufacturer has a portion of the total revenue for that quarter/year being represented as a percentage of a number or ratio as a fraction of 100... Obviously 100 would be the maximum because it represents the total profit from all manufacturers in that industry sector.
 

frombehind

Honorable
Feb 18, 2012
351
0
10,810
10
how the hell can you have anything more then 100% of a total? that does not make any sense... a 103% INCREASE makes sense, but unless the laws the laws of physics and common sense have changed while I was not looking... you jut cant have more then EVERYTHING (100%)
 

dthx

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2010
183
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]s3anister[/nom]Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but I thought it wasn't possible to have more than 100% profit in a given sector. Typically, a manufacturer has a portion of the total revenue for that quarter/year being represented as a percentage of a number or ratio as a fraction of 100... Obviously 100 would be the maximum because it represents the total profit from all manufacturers in that industry sector.[/citation]
You're right, but it's Zak... and he may still be in keynote mode where everything Apple does is always 4x or 8x faster, 48% thinner, and 34% lighter. In his magic world, the universe is not finite and Apple will increase his market share (which is already far over the 100%) and make his sales volume grow exponentially and forever...
 

jerm1027

Distinguished
Apr 20, 2011
404
0
18,810
11
[citation][nom]frombehind[/nom]Ughh... Tom's >_<You guys are embarrassing yourselves here[/citation]
"The Authority of Tech"
Can't do simple math.
 

builder4

Distinguished
May 7, 2011
47
0
18,540
1
While it would not be possible to have more than 100% of the total revenue, it IS possible to have more than 100% of the total profits for a sector.
Imagine company A made $1,000,000,000 profit in a quarter, and company B made a LOSS of $100,000,000. Assuming there were only 2 companies, the sector would have had total profits of $900,000,000. This would mean company A would have made 111% of the total profits of that sector for that quarter.
 

frombehind

Honorable
Feb 18, 2012
351
0
10,810
10
[citation][nom]builder4[/nom]While it would not be possible to have more than 100% of the total revenue, it IS possible to have more than 100% of the total profits for a sector.Imagine company A made $1,000,000,000 profit in a quarter, and company B made a LOSS of $100,000,000. Assuming there were only 2 companies, the sector would have had total profits of $900,000,000. This would mean company A would have made 111% of the total profits of that sector for that quarter.[/citation]
hmm, kinda makes sense i guess... i dunno financial math is all funky ^.^
 

Benthon

Distinguished
Oct 1, 2010
257
0
18,780
0
Financials people. If someone else posts a loss (Like Blackberry in 2012?) then making up their revenue loss would go over 100%.
 

neon neophyte

Splendid
BANNED
invest in a company thats stock keeps dropping while they remain completely incapable of creating anything new? while apple users flock to other avenues and people are more and more disgusted by apples business practices. sorry timmy, you are coasting on legacy and i would have to be a fool to bet on you.
 

_Cosmin_

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2006
421
9
18,865
34
I think Zak just found a bug in the calculator application on his shity iphone... or a new math theory which adding apples with anything else give 103% no matter what
 

nieur

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2011
203
0
18,680
0
I can't get it (103% profit). I am not financial expert
I checked on the Forbes(source) site there is also written as 103%
 

_Cosmin_

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2006
421
9
18,865
34
[citation][nom]C26000[/nom]Yes it's possible to have more than 100% if the other companies have losses[/citation]

No it`s not. Profit are the money you remain with after paying everything else involved in production and selling the product and therfore cant be negative! Losses are when you invest money in product manufacturing and you cant sell it. They are two different things...
When you loose all your money and you file for bankruptcy i dont think you will be happy if they would consider this a profit...
 

_Cosmin_

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2006
421
9
18,865
34
[citation][nom]builder4[/nom]While it would not be possible to have more than 100% of the total revenue, it IS possible to have more than 100% of the total profits for a sector.Imagine company A made $1,000,000,000 profit in a quarter, and company B made a LOSS of $100,000,000. Assuming there were only 2 companies, the sector would have had total profits of $900,000,000. This would mean company A would have made 111% of the total profits of that sector for that quarter.[/citation]

As Merriam-Webster define the profit is "the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost"

So your calculations are WRONG! If firm A makes profit 100k $ and B does not make profit then firm A has 100% profit in that market share! Why did you extract loses of firm B from profit of firm A? They are different firms with diferent owners... havent you learn in school? Do not mix apples with oranges !
 

calmstateofmind

Distinguished
Jul 2, 2009
898
0
19,160
50
[citation][nom]C26000[/nom]Yes it's possible to have more than 100% if the other companies have losses[/citation]

I'm sorry, but it's not possible. There is profit, and then there's what's called markup. Zak has mistakenly confused the two with each other.
 

mr_tuel

Distinguished
May 23, 2009
288
0
18,780
0
Whoa did someone forget basic statistics? You can't have more than 100% of anything in the context of proportions of a whole. No one can sell more than 100% of the total phones sold or have more profit than there was. That is like saying I sold more apples in the market than were being sold in the market. Doesn't make sense does it? How valid are Tom's video card comparisons when basic statistic principles are being ignored?
 

pacomac

Honorable
Sep 24, 2012
129
0
10,680
0
[citation][nom]builder4[/nom]While it would not be possible to have more than 100% of the total revenue, it IS possible to have more than 100% of the total profits for a sector.Imagine company A made $1,000,000,000 profit in a quarter, and company B made a LOSS of $100,000,000. Assuming there were only 2 companies, the sector would have had total profits of $900,000,000. This would mean company A would have made 111% of the total profits of that sector for that quarter.[/citation]

Finally, someone with a bit of common sense!
 

gtvr

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2009
1,166
0
19,460
53
Why is everyone complaining about the math without reading the article? It makes no sense if everyone is profitable. It sounds a little weird, but the math works, if some companies have losses. Don't complain about the headline if you don't actually read the article.
 

teh_chem

Honorable
Jun 20, 2012
902
0
11,010
17
If it's weird to think that Apple and Samsung made more profit than all of the other handset companies combined, that's because it is weird; this is a poor analysis summary (using these seems to be a theme with Tom's news and some specific content-posters). Because it is using the entire company's profits for the time period, and not the specific business segment (in the case of Apple, that would be phone handsets, tablets, desktop computers, laptop computers, and other devices like AppleTV), and comparing it to the handset-only market. Both Apple and Samsung make non-handset hardware. This is about as meaningful as saying that Exxon Mobil's profits accounted for over 100% of 2012 handset profits.

I also hate how profit comparisons like this are made. Profit is defined as literally the financial GAIN between revenues and costs. If you have a negative value, it's classified as a LOSS, not profit, so fundamentally, it shouldn't be included, and only companies with profit should be compared among one another. One cannot arrive at over 100% profit for a single case using the literal definition of profit. Of course, that doesn't stop comparisons that diverge from the literal definitions, and these sorts of comparisons are common for financial comparisons.
 

cats_Paw

Distinguished
[citation][nom]jerm1027[/nom]"The Authority of Tech"Can't do simple math.[/citation]

I think we all know this aint an authority in tech since 2010 :D.

But the 103%... that just killed me. Im starting to like this site as a humor site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS