Investing

Who's buying RIM shares? And how much could it gain this year?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 15th, 2015 12:17 pm
Jr. Member
Oct 26, 2012
193 posts
23 upvotes
sirex wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 8:14 pm
rim will probably sell 5 million phones in the course of 2013, if it's any good.
They shipped 6.9mil phones last quarter alone, but they'll go down to 1.25mil a quarter with their new offerings?
Also global market share is closer to 5%, not to mention the market itself is still growing.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 11, 2005
18565 posts
1009 upvotes
Mark77 wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:09 pm
Except if RIM does that, they kill off realizing any value from the security and enterprise end of their platform unless they can figure out some way of segmenting the two. After all, the enterprise customers aren't the ones who will be buying apps (generally speaking), and they're the ones that benefit from all the under-the-hood stuff that essentially keeps them captive to RIM's product lines (as iOS and Android are intrinsically quite unsecure with security not even being a design consideration in either).
Enterprise customers buy a ton of apps actually, they just purchsase them via site-licensing.

Enterprise is different, RIM will make money there again not on the hardware but on the services. At least, I imagine that is the plan. No one in their right mind wants to be a hardware company. If the only way you make money is margin on hardware, you are on the fast track to nowhere town. Look at HP for your future. Samsung gets away with it but only because they basically own the whole stack from the chip to the OLED to the phone itself, they can have razor thin margins because they don't have to outsource hardly anything since they are the ones making the components in their phones.
To be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. -- E. E. Cummings
Deal Addict
Jan 29, 2006
1563 posts
33 upvotes
Well i did it guys i bought into RIM shares today. I'm really excited about what they're trying to accomplish. it's hard to compare BB10 with iOS, Android and Windows phone, but i think BB10 will be revolutionary.
from an investment standpoint, at this price ($17.74) it's still cheap (below book value, company has no long term debt, good ratios, analysts are currently upgrading their targets/ratings, stock is still about 25% shorted, but after Jan 30th, we can expect a huge reward or a big fall). Public sentiment around BB10 has been very positive, a lot of people are curious and excited about what RIM has to offer. I think RIM could be climb to $25 in the near term and possibly 40-60 in the long range forecast.

as a consumer, what do i like about BB10? i'm a very simple person. but i think 'peaking into the hub' is very cool. and their predictive typing on their keyboard is very intuitive. the phone appears to be designed to the concept of flow - ie. optimal efficiency, being able to use the phone with one thumb.

i hope they price this phone right and launch enough apps to please the masses. Thanks for reading my 2 cents.

*i am not a financial advisor, i do have a position in RIM. please consult a financial advisor before making any decisions.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3157 upvotes
Calgary
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:14 pm
Enterprise customers buy a ton of apps actually, they just purchsase them via site-licensing.

Enterprise is different, RIM will make money there again not on the hardware but on the services. At least, I imagine that is the plan. No one in their right mind wants to be a hardware company. If the only way you make money is margin on hardware, you are on the fast track to nowhere town. Look at HP for your future. Samsung gets away with it but only because they basically own the whole stack from the chip to the OLED to the phone itself, they can have razor thin margins because they don't have to outsource hardly anything since they are the ones making the components in their phones.
Well, 'hardware' in the context of not wanting to be a hardware company, actually is in manufacturing. A modern phone is obviously a combination of a ton of software and hardware. RIM has made moves towards the premise that they don't want to be supplying the actual 'hardware', but that doesn't mean that they won't still be in a position to be selling $400-$500 worth of software per phone. Because that's what you're basically buying with a modern iOS or BB device -- a $200 piece of 'hardware' + $300-$600 worth of 'software'. They just happen to be bundled together as a functional system, but that need not be the case.

This is quite unlike, for instance, 'hardware' in the PC computer sense, where basically you're paying for a bunch of microchips, and only a very tiny amount of firmware adequate to latch the address of the operating systems' bootloader from whatever I/O happens to be attached.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 11, 2005
18565 posts
1009 upvotes
Breaking: New Samsung viral campaign against RIM, same idea they took against Apple, except instead of targeting hipsters, they target business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fcUf4d-Y3s
To be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. -- E. E. Cummings
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3157 upvotes
Calgary
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:14 pm
Enterprise customers buy a ton of apps actually, they just purchsase them via site-licensing.
Yeah but not really through the Apple/Google retail distribution eco-systems which you claim are the big source of profitability. One of the big selling points of the BB in the contemporary enterprise is that a corporate IT manager isn't going to be seeing a $1000+ app bill because some new employee decided to go on an app buying rampage. The new platform undoubtedly will provide mechanisms by which IT managers can strictly control the acquisition and use of handset apps, much like they already do in the managed enterprise PC realm. For cost containment/control, and for compliance/audit/quality assurance/etc. reasons, of course.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3157 upvotes
Calgary
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:26 pm
Breaking: New Samsung viral campaign against RIM, same idea they took against Apple

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fcUf4d-Y3s
Not even aimed at the people who really matter -- the folks who are actually paying for the phones! And no wonder -- when the iOS/Android platform are reviewed for their security and inter-operability with the secure/managed enterprise environment, they come up short in many ways. Appealing to end-users is an interesting tactic, but at the end of the day, businesses that are on the BB, are generally on the BB for very good reasons, and employees watching Samsung ads isn't going to magically endow Android or iOS with the requisite functionality that the enterprise customers require.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Jr. Member
Oct 26, 2012
193 posts
23 upvotes
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:26 pm
Breaking: New Samsung viral campaign against RIM, same idea they took against Apple, except instead of targeting hipsters, they target business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fcUf4d-Y3s
The ad is weird. They're making fun of themselves, as the company using the samsung phones are clearly in over their heads.
It's like they dreamed up a company to make fun of Apple, then something was lost in translation, they changed the iCompany to use samsung phones, and tacked on Blackberry bashing.

The ad would have been perfect if Unicorn Apocalypse's creators were swiching to Iphones, interacting with the BB dinosaurs, and with a more level-headed, over-achieving competitor using samsung.
Deal Addict
Mar 10, 2010
1605 posts
390 upvotes
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:03 pm
You're wrong here on a bunch of fronts.

Apple does not make most of their money selling phones, they make it on iTunes and app store sales and book sales. The phone is a conduit to the customer... they may make a $100 profit on the phone but over the course of the 3 years the person owns the phone Apple makes far more than $100 in other sales. If RIM wants to have any chance with BB10 they have to replicate this model. That means having a successful ecosystem, and that means getting handsets out into the hands of people. RIM should not be selling these phones at any margin AT ALL, in fact I would be very surprised if they did not have them marked down to a very low price such that they were selling them at a loss.
Wow, it'd be nice if you had any clue what you're talking about...

Image

If anything, Apple is a hardware company since they make 52% of their revenue from iPhone and 20% from the iPad...nevermind the iPod and Mac lines. iTunes amounts to 4% of their revenues.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3157 upvotes
Calgary
Vitalogy80 wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 10:05 pm
Wow, it'd be nice if you had any clue what you're talking about...

Image

If anything, Apple is a hardware company since they make 52% of their revenue from iPhone and 20% from the iPad...nevermind the iPod and Mac lines. iTunes amounts to 4% of their revenues.
Part of the problem is the definition of hardware, as I briefly discussed with brunes. When you buy an iPhone or an iPad, you're buying a combination of hardware and software. How much gets allocated to each bucket is largely an issue for the accountants and the transfer-pricing experts at the IRS, but it is innaccurate to look at the handsets or tablets as being pure 'hardware' or pure 'software' and applying the paradigms of pure hardware (or pure software) to either.

The Android vendors are obviously in quite a sweet spot, relatively speaking, because they just have to churn out 'hardware', and the software basically comes heavily as open source/free software. This is why Apple should cower in fear -- there are practically no redeeming qualities of iOS versus Android, and there's a far larger user base for Android (and its related systems including Linux) over which to spread the development effort. The $200 full-featured Android phone is a year or two away from being reality -- a $200 iPhone would run Apple basically out of the market, much like they got ran out of the PC market in the 80s and 90s with their higher cost solutions.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 11, 2005
18565 posts
1009 upvotes
Vitalogy80 wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 10:05 pm
If anything, Apple is a hardware company since they make 52% of their revenue from iPhone and 20% from the iPad...nevermind the iPod and Mac lines. iTunes amounts to 4% of their revenues.
Who cares how much revenue it accounts for. How much EARNINGS does it account for? Revenue != Earnings.

Also whoever made this chart has rocks in their head, Apple does not sell CPUs, I have no idea what that is talking about. Are they talking about licensing the A5 or something crazy? I have never even heard of that.
To be nobody but yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting. -- E. E. Cummings
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3157 upvotes
Calgary
huiohuio wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 9:40 pm
The ad is weird. They're making fun of themselves, as the company using the samsung phones are clearly in over their heads.
It's like they dreamed up a company to make fun of Apple, then something was lost in translation, they changed the iCompany to use samsung phones, and tacked on Blackberry bashing.

The ad would have been perfect if Unicorn Apocalypse's creators were swiching to Iphones, interacting with the BB dinosaurs, and with a more level-headed, over-achieving competitor using samsung.
At best, the little blurb of 'security' was targeted at the small business customers, and definitely nothing that's applicable to the enterprise customers for which the BB product has proven its commercial worth. And 'security' is just one part of the overall BB framework in such environments -- manageability and auditability is another.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3157 upvotes
Calgary
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 10:15 pm
Who cares how much revenue it accounts for. How much EARNINGS does it account for? Revenue != Earnings.
Unless his pie chart is wrong (??), 4% revenue is pretty darn insignificant. I'm happy with the claim that only a small share of Apple's revenues and earnings come from the sale of online services, including books, movies and music. Obviously most of Apple's revenue and profit comes from the bundled hardware and software inherent in the iPhone, iPad, and the personal computers. Apple is quite unique in that the hardware and the software generally isn't separable, unlike the rest of the so-called 'hardware' supply industry which is, as you correctly state, in a very serious state of distress.
TodayHello wrote:
Oct 16th, 2012 9:06 pm
...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Jr. Member
Oct 26, 2012
193 posts
23 upvotes
brunes wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 10:15 pm
Who cares how much revenue it accounts for. How much EARNINGS does it account for? Revenue != Earnings.

Also whoever made this chart has rocks in their head, Apple does not sell CPUs, I have no idea what that is talking about. Are they talking about licensing the A5 or something crazy? I have never even heard of that.
Check the earnings numbers. With even very conservative iPhone margin estimates, earnings from phone sales totally blow away even total revenue from iTunes.

By CPU they probably mean notebook and desktop computers.
Jr. Member
Oct 26, 2012
193 posts
23 upvotes
Mark77 wrote:
Jan 22nd, 2013 10:10 pm
Part of the problem is the definition of hardware, as I briefly discussed with brunes. When you buy an iPhone or an iPad, you're buying a combination of hardware and software. How much gets allocated to each bucket is largely an issue for the accountants and the transfer-pricing experts at the IRS, but it is innaccurate to look at the handsets or tablets as being pure 'hardware' or pure 'software' and applying the paradigms of pure hardware (or pure software) to either.

The Android vendors are obviously in quite a sweet spot, relatively speaking, because they just have to churn out 'hardware', and the software basically comes heavily as open source/free software. This is why Apple should cower in fear -- there are practically no redeeming qualities of iOS versus Android, and there's a far larger user base for Android (and its related systems including Linux) over which to spread the development effort. The $200 full-featured Android phone is a year or two away from being reality -- a $200 iPhone would run Apple basically out of the market, much like they got ran out of the PC market in the 80s and 90s with their higher cost solutions.
It's easier to think of Apple as a product company.

I'm not too sure why you say Android vendors are in a sweet spot. They're desperately trying to differentiate themselves through form factor and UI improvements, with only Samsung having had success so far. That branding and differentiation allows Samsung to go from near $0 margin to $100+.
The thing that makes it "easy" for Android vendors to churn out phones is also what makes their margins razor-thin.

Also there are plenty of advantages to an Apple-like closed system. It's the same as the Microsoft vs Apple philosophical debate
× < >

Top