Saturday, August 1st 2015

Seagate Reports Fiscal Third Quarter 2015 Results

Seagate Technology plc today reported financial results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 ended April 3, 2015. For the third quarter, the Company reported revenue of approximately $3.3 billion, gross margin of 28.7%, net income of $291 million and diluted earnings per share of $0.88. On a non-GAAP basis, which excludes the net impact of certain items, Seagate reported gross margin of 28.9%, net income of $357 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.08. For a detailed reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP results, see the accompanying financial tables.

During the third quarter, the Company generated approximately $374 million in operating cash flow, paid cash dividends of $176 million and repurchased approximately 12 million ordinary shares for $706 million. Year to date, the Company has returned approximately $1.4 billion to shareholders in dividend and stock redemptions. Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash, and short-term investments totaled approximately $2.6 billion at the end of the quarter.

"In light of dynamic market conditions this quarter we are quite satisfied with our operational performance and ability to return value to shareholders," said Steve Luczo, Seagate's chairman and chief executive officer. "Near-term macro uncertainty is affecting certain areas of our addressable market however we remain optimistic that market demand for exabytes of storage will continue to increase over the long-term. Looking ahead, we are focused on aligning our storage technology portfolio effectively to capitalize on market growth opportunities, demonstrating operating profitability and returning value to shareholders."

Quarterly Cash Dividend
The Board of Directors has approved a quarterly cash dividend of $0.54 per share, which will be payable on May 15, 2015 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on May 1, 2015. The payment of any future quarterly dividends will be at the discretion of the Board and will be dependent upon Seagate's financial position, results of operations, available cash, cash flow, capital requirements and other factors deemed relevant by the Board.
Add your own comment

12 Comments on Seagate Reports Fiscal Third Quarter 2015 Results

#1
R-T-B
Surprised they are reporting profits at all, honestly... they seem to be doing well in the wake of SSDs. Would not have expected that.
Posted on Reply
#2
tabascosauz
A lot of OEM desktops still use Seagate's Barracuda over WD's Blue, and almost none of them have SSDs. Lower end laptops don't have SSDs, and are often Seagate Momentus. I think that they have earned a not-so-good reputation amongst enthusiasts, but Seagate also doesn't care.

I'd personally like to see Seagate's profits diminish and its advantage steadily decline into nothing. WD is no angel, but they have a marketing strategy that makes info clear yet informative for consumers, better defined warranty, as well as drives that cover more usage scenarios. Seagate seems to have forgotten that SSDs exist after the Seagate 600 series, which is pretty hard to find and faded into oblivion.
Posted on Reply
#3
R-T-B
I see more HGST in use in OEMs, or used too anyways, back when they were actually owned by Hitachi. In older systems there were also a lot of Fujitsu's running around in laptops.

And with the recent developments regarding WD "OEM" drives, I can't really argue WD's warranty is "well-defined" anymore...
Posted on Reply
#4
tabascosauz
R-T-BI see more HGST in use in OEMs, or used too anyways, back when they were actually owned by Hitachi. In older systems there were also a lot of Fujitsu's running around in laptops.

And with the recent developments regarding WD "OEM" drives, I can't really argue WD's warranty is "well-defined" anymore...
It's a bit ambiguous, but I've never found a problem with the naming scheme since Newegg clearly states that some are "bare drive" and some are "bare drive OEM". Maybe some retailers mix OEM drives that have no warranty and retail drives under a single SKU. At least the WD rep came on and clarified things.

Hitachi owning HGST was back prior to 2011 I think, but I know for a fact that Dell tends to go with Seagate. HP isn't so clear.
Posted on Reply
#5
natr0n
Amazing how they make money, yet put out so many bad drives.
Posted on Reply
#6
Fourstaff
natr0nAmazing how they make money, yet put out so many bad drives.
Their failure rate is not that high once averaged out. Poor handling by couriers causes a lot more problems.
Posted on Reply
#7
PLAfiller
natr0nAmazing how they make money, yet put out so many bad drives.
Their hybrid drive offerings are basically the only suggestion you get between the both worlds. Or for people not able to shell the cash for a SSD.
Posted on Reply
#8
Prima.Vera
Sorry guys. Personal opinion I think the dinosaurs like HDD and Optical media should disappear into oblivion, just like the floppy disks, magneto-tapes, ZIP drives, ISA slots, etc...
Posted on Reply
#9
tabascosauz
lZKoceTheir hybrid drive offerings are basically the only suggestion you get between the both worlds. Or for people not able to shell the cash for a SSD.
"not able to shell out the cash for a SSD" Well, 128GB drives are at the same price point as 1TB Blue / Barracuda so that's a pretty lame excuse not to save up for a bit and get an SSD. User in question would probably already have 500GB - 1TB of HDD space to begin with, and hybrid drives are more expensive (~$100), so unless user decides to go buy another 1TB Blue (no point in this unless user is that 1% of people who just need HDD space for their junk), there aren't a lot of other choices at that price.

Their hybrid drives are also basically still an HDD in performance. They really are pretty sucky. In the laptop space, SRT 16GB/32GB mSATA + HDD is becoming more widespread instead, where a hybrid drive would usually be dominant in value. And that kind of SRT configuration would probably still be superior to hybrid drives, given that Seagate's hybrid drives have like, 8GB of SSD cache, which would probably be too slow to use in an SSD.
Posted on Reply
#10
R-T-B
The only legitimate reason I can see to go HDD at this point is the cheap $/GB ratio.

You basically need a large porn collection that you'll never view in your lifetime. Count me out. :P
Posted on Reply
#11
64K
R-T-BThe only legitimate reason I can see to go HDD at this point is the cheap $/GB ratio.

You basically need a large porn collection that you'll never view in your lifetime. Count me out. :p
My porn collection is very small on one of my laptops. Most porn is drivel anyway but I keep a lot of games on my desktop and with games going to 20GB-50GB and Star Citizen rumored to be around 100GB on release I need 2TB storage and a HDD is perfect for that. When a 2TB SSD isn't ridiculously expensive then I'll get one.
Posted on Reply
#12
R-T-B
64KMy porn collection is very small on one of my laptops. Most porn is drivel anyway but I keep a lot of games on my desktop and with games going to 20GB-50GB and Star Citizen rumored to be around 100GB on release I need 2TB storage and a HDD is perfect for that. When a 2TB SSD isn't ridiculously expensive then I'll get one.
Game sizes are indeed getting bigger, I guess I just don't keep that many installed at once... heh.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 23rd, 2024 16:14 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts