[ajross]

> But calling this a "disaster" is a bit much

Good grief. The quote in context was "These aren't "bad" numbers, but for Apple they're sort of a disaster." You really insist on skipping not one but three qualifiers? I specifically stated they weren't bad, that the analysis was relative to Apple's historical performance, and I even put a "sort of" in front!

And I stand by that. If you have a company whose stock is priced at a level defined by a decade of profitability the like of which the modern world literally has not seen, these numbers represent a pretty radical correction even if there are lots of Fortune 500 companies that would love to have a balance sheet like this. They aren't Apple.