WP7 is innovative but being innovative doesn't make a product popular. Even being better tech doesn't mean a product wins over inferior tech as there are many other aspects to be considered. I think MS's biggest problem with WP7 is that they decided to keep the Windows name. If they had only rebranded it they could have shed a lot of what people dislike about MS. I also think they could have taken a solid hold of the tablet industry had they focused on that with the WP7 UI instead of focusing on a phone that they clearly are very late to market. Does that really make an Apple hater?
If Microsoft had listened to Steve Jobs the zune may have been the Xplayer or something and then the phone simply the X or Xphone or something. He suggested they stick to the nomenclature of their successful Xbox.
If Microsoft had listened to Steve Jobs the zune may have been the Xplayer or something and then the phone simply the X or Xphone or something. He suggested they stick to the nomenclature of their successful Xbox.
Instead we get a Zune. Wtf
I think XPlayer sounds pretty good. Despite the problems with the Xbox it doesn't have a negative aura around it like Windows.
Well said. My wife, on my suggestion, moved about half of hers to AAPL, her broker screamed blue murder and made her sign a paper to say she acknowledged he disagreed. His investments are still down several years later and last summer she moved half of those. He didn't say as much that time. His expert investments which are mostly in 'safe' funds are still down. Some times you have to take a risk but after tracking Apple closely for over thirty years I think it wasn't much of a risk this last decade and I am still confident, although there will be ups and downs, the slope continues upward.
I stopped seriously listening to financial "experts" many years ago shortly after I was talked into selling a pile of Apple stock by one these so called "financial professionals". Within 30 days of selling, the stock had gained about 10% overall. It's now a couple of hundred dollars up since then! Yeesh!
My cost basis is under $10 a share and 'yes' I understand that holding on to something like Apple goes against every accepted financial guideline. Everyone's position is unique. For me, it works..
I stopped my financial adviser from ever bring up the subject again by telling them that when their over all portfolio starts to out perform my Apple stock, I'll consider entertaining their suggestions. You might want to ask your financial 'expert' to sign a letter stating that his services are free until he can provide you with better performance than Apple. My guess is that you will hear crickets chirping just like I did when I dropped that bomb on my 'expert'.
I wish I had a job that would allow me to be wrong most of the time.
I stopped seriously listening to financial "experts" many years ago shortly after I was talked into selling a pile of Apple stock by one these so called "financial professionals". Within 30 days of selling, the stock had gained about 10% overall. It's now a couple of hundred dollars up since then! Yeesh!
My cost basis is under $10 a share and 'yes' I understand that holding on to something like Apple goes against every accepted financial guideline. Everyone's position is unique. For me, it works..
I stopped my financial adviser from ever bring up the subject again by telling them that when their over all portfolio starts to out perform my Apple stock, I'll consider entertaining their suggestions. You might want to ask your financial 'expert' to sign a letter stating that his services are free until he can provide you with better performance than Apple. My guess is that you will hear crickets chirping just like I did when I dropped that bomb on my 'expert'.
I wish I had a job that would allow me to be wrong most of the time.
I said the same, exact things ...
Plus in this town quite a few of these experts are being indicted in connection with various scams ranging from ponzi schemes to real estate fraud. Even at the high end toxic assets get AAA and the US gets a down grade by the same folks? Sheesh..
I am saying that carrying large amounts of cash on a balance sheet is not relevant to investors, because investors never see a single penny of it unless the company either pays some of it out as a dividend or buys back shares. The money might as well be on the moon, as far as investors are concerned.
I disagree. I have the ability to see more then a single penny of Apple's cash even if they don't issue dividends or buy back shares. I'll get to see the cash when I decide to cash in on my AAPL holdings.
I appreciate the detailed post but I can't say I understand it. In fact I'm quite confused on how debt looks like an asset and having cash on hand looks like a liability.
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
I can see why so many accountants end up in jail. (just joshing ... I think). So I am crazy to prefer the car with no debt and a gold bar in it?
So you are saying Apple's market Cap is factoring in the near 100B cash. In which case Apple is even more under valued than I thought!
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
Mine, too. I think that was a plot point in The Heist. Just kidding, Bageljoey. Thanks for the example but I can't say I will ever really "get it." From my PoV for the example to be relevant the gold would have to be in pure bars so they are transferable without any effort whatsoever just like cash, at which point I say give me the car at the discounted "value" that is loaded down with gold stolen from The Italian Job.
Mine, too. I think that was a plot point in The Heist. Just kidding, Bageljoey. Thanks for the example but I can't say I will ever really "get it." From my PoV for the example to be relevant the gold would have to be in pure bars so they are transferable without any effort whatsoever just like cash, at which point I say give me the car at the discounted "value" that is loaded down with gold stolen from The Italian Job.
Hey I think we should go into business selling cars to accountants!
Mine, too. I think that was a plot point in The Heist. Just kidding, Bageljoey. Thanks for the example but I can't say I will ever really "get it."
You're welcome.
I don't think it is really a big deal anyway. It is one technical trick some investors use to try to gain an insight, but there are zillions of those and everybody thinks their trick is the best.
Personally, I think the best investing strategy was to buy AAPL several years ago and sit on it. It may not sound fancy, but the results are outstanding!
I'd agree there, but don't fret, you can fix it .. you simply need to learn to respond without the snarky tone, which may not be intentional but is never the less, coming over that way time and time again.
It's a happy day, let's all sing Kumbaya and move on
Yeah, and maybe one of these days you'll read my posts for what I'm actually saying and not interpret every disagreement as an insult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You are ignoring that Apple is spending their cash, they are just making more than they are spending. There a numerous reports of Apple investing billions in lump sum investments to other companies. This is not a bad thing for investors and you can look at today's stock price to see that Apple's actions have increased share holder value since they went from red to black.
All you're really saying here is that Apple has a cost of doing business. Well, sure. But the free cash accumulation is happening after paying for operating costs, and after their various investments. So it's net, and the sum of the net continues to grow, and at an accelerating rate.
I am all for a company investing in growth. This is the purpose of capital. I've said this many, many times in these threads. But when it becomes very, very clear that a company can't come anywhere close to spending their free cash on growth, then question of what other thing(s) they should do with the money naturally arises.
As for operating in the red, Apple hasn't done that in a long time. You don't even want to think about what would happen if Apple reported a loss.
Just a scenario for you to consider: Apple's board decides to pay stockholders a very generous annual dividend of 2%, which I will round up to $10 a share. The total cost to Apple's cash flow would be $9.3b. That's only a bit more than half the amount of cash they added to the stockpile in just the last quarter alone. It could easily amount to not more than 20% of their annual free cash flow -- which means they could still stockpile 80%, or $50b more every year, even assuming that the accumulation rate doesn't increase.
So tell me again, how does this damage Apple's ability to do anything?
Just a scenario for you to consider: Apple's board decides to pay stockholders a very generous annual dividend of 2%, which I will round up to $10 a share. The total cost to Apple's cash flow would be $9.3b. That's only a bit more than half the amount of cash they added to the stockpile in just the last quarter alone. It could easily amount to not more than 20% of their annual free cash flow -- which means they could still stockpile 80%, or $50b more every year, even assuming that the accumulation rate doesn't increase.
So tell me again, how does this damage Apple's ability to do anything?
Even if we consider the US investors and their US cash holdings that seems like it would still be doable and I have no problem with Apple doing whatever they want with their money so long as it doesn't negatively affect their business or their valuation.
My question is why must it be done for the company to be successful? Why do you require them to Dellify their cash by "giving the money back to the stockholders" instead of investing it? I certainly didn't buy AAPL because I expected quarterly dividends; I have other stocks for that.
Have you considered that Apple is saving up for something big? Maybe they want to eventually bring the production back to the US with robots that run off of iOS or buy the Cook Islands and relocate their HQ, or make their space ship campus into real spaceship.
Comments
WP7 is innovative but being innovative doesn't make a product popular. Even being better tech doesn't mean a product wins over inferior tech as there are many other aspects to be considered. I think MS's biggest problem with WP7 is that they decided to keep the Windows name. If they had only rebranded it they could have shed a lot of what people dislike about MS. I also think they could have taken a solid hold of the tablet industry had they focused on that with the WP7 UI instead of focusing on a phone that they clearly are very late to market. Does that really make an Apple hater?
You mean something like Zunephone?
You mean something like Zunephone?
If Microsoft had listened to Steve Jobs the zune may have been the Xplayer or something and then the phone simply the X or Xphone or something. He suggested they stick to the nomenclature of their successful Xbox.
Instead we get a Zune. Wtf
If Microsoft had listened to Steve Jobs the zune may have been the Xplayer or something and then the phone simply the X or Xphone or something. He suggested they stick to the nomenclature of their successful Xbox.
Instead we get a Zune. Wtf
I think XPlayer sounds pretty good. Despite the problems with the Xbox it doesn't have a negative aura around it like Windows.
And IMHO you just summed up the iPad market dominance too. Even if they ever make a wonderful tablet the opposition is too late.
If they can get the Retina Display on all models at the same price points they are today it'll be this kind of victory for the iPad. Basically the iPod but at a much faster rate. By comparison this was the iPod game compared to the iPad. I also predict the iPad arm will be more profitable than the iPhone arm in 2 years after that happens.
Well said. My wife, on my suggestion, moved about half of hers to AAPL, her broker screamed blue murder and made her sign a paper to say she acknowledged he disagreed. His investments are still down several years later and last summer she moved half of those. He didn't say as much that time. His expert investments which are mostly in 'safe' funds are still down. Some times you have to take a risk but after tracking Apple closely for over thirty years I think it wasn't much of a risk this last decade and I am still confident, although there will be ups and downs, the slope continues upward.
I stopped seriously listening to financial "experts" many years ago shortly after I was talked into selling a pile of Apple stock by one these so called "financial professionals". Within 30 days of selling, the stock had gained about 10% overall. It's now a couple of hundred dollars up since then! Yeesh!
My cost basis is under $10 a share and 'yes' I understand that holding on to something like Apple goes against every accepted financial guideline. Everyone's position is unique. For me, it works..
I stopped my financial adviser from ever bring up the subject again by telling them that when their over all portfolio starts to out perform my Apple stock, I'll consider entertaining their suggestions. You might want to ask your financial 'expert' to sign a letter stating that his services are free until he can provide you with better performance than Apple. My guess is that you will hear crickets chirping just like I did when I dropped that bomb on my 'expert'.
I wish I had a job that would allow me to be wrong most of the time.
If they can get the Retina Display on all models at the same price points they are today it'll be this kind of victory for the iPad. Basically the iPod but at a much faster rate. By comparison this was the iPod game compared to the iPad. I also predict the iPad arm will be more profitable than the iPhone arm in 2 years after that happens.
You will be proven correct in a few weeks I hope.
I stopped seriously listening to financial "experts" many years ago shortly after I was talked into selling a pile of Apple stock by one these so called "financial professionals". Within 30 days of selling, the stock had gained about 10% overall. It's now a couple of hundred dollars up since then! Yeesh!
My cost basis is under $10 a share and 'yes' I understand that holding on to something like Apple goes against every accepted financial guideline. Everyone's position is unique. For me, it works..
I stopped my financial adviser from ever bring up the subject again by telling them that when their over all portfolio starts to out perform my Apple stock, I'll consider entertaining their suggestions. You might want to ask your financial 'expert' to sign a letter stating that his services are free until he can provide you with better performance than Apple. My guess is that you will hear crickets chirping just like I did when I dropped that bomb on my 'expert'.
I wish I had a job that would allow me to be wrong most of the time.
I said the same, exact things ...
Plus in this town quite a few of these experts are being indicted in connection with various scams ranging from ponzi schemes to real estate fraud. Even at the high end toxic assets get AAA and the US gets a down grade by the same folks? Sheesh..
I am saying that carrying large amounts of cash on a balance sheet is not relevant to investors, because investors never see a single penny of it unless the company either pays some of it out as a dividend or buys back shares. The money might as well be on the moon, as far as investors are concerned.
I disagree. I have the ability to see more then a single penny of Apple's cash even if they don't issue dividends or buy back shares. I'll get to see the cash when I decide to cash in on my AAPL holdings.
I appreciate the detailed post but I can't say I understand it. In fact I'm quite confused on how debt looks like an asset and having cash on hand looks like a liability.
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
My head hurts...
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
I can see why so many accountants end up in jail. (just joshing ... I think). So I am crazy to prefer the car with no debt and a gold bar in it?
So you are saying Apple's market Cap is factoring in the near 100B cash. In which case Apple is even more under valued than I thought!
I don't know if an alternate example will help or hurt, but I find the standard car analogy makes it clear in my head:
Suppose you were looking at buying a used car and you found two cars to consider, both costing $10,000. However, the person selling Car A still owes $2,000 to the bank that you would also have to pick up (debt) in addition to the $10,000 sale price.
On the other hand, Car B has no debt, and in fact is being sold with $2,000 in gold in the glove compartment.
Both cars have the same selling price, but Car A would have to be about $4,000 more valuable than Car B if you back out the debt or equity situation of each vehicle.
Imagine a 2005 BMW that isn't paid off Vs. a 2005 Haundi with gold in the glove compartment. The gold doesn't make the Haundi less valuable (just the opposite) but if you exclude it to figure out how much the car itself is worth, the value of the car would go down.
Apple, then is something like a car loaded with gold. Sure, it is a nice car--one of the best. But it's market valuation isn't all about it's vehicular properties--a chunck of it's market cap could be attributed to the $100 billion in the glove compartment...
Finally! Someone gets it!
My head hurts...
Mine, too. I think that was a plot point in The Heist. Just kidding, Bageljoey. Thanks for the example but I can't say I will ever really "get it." From my PoV for the example to be relevant the gold would have to be in pure bars so they are transferable without any effort whatsoever just like cash, at which point I say give me the car at the discounted "value" that is loaded down with gold stolen from The Italian Job.
Mine, too. I think that was a plot point in The Heist. Just kidding, Bageljoey. Thanks for the example but I can't say I will ever really "get it." From my PoV for the example to be relevant the gold would have to be in pure bars so they are transferable without any effort whatsoever just like cash, at which point I say give me the car at the discounted "value" that is loaded down with gold stolen from The Italian Job.
Hey I think we should go into business selling cars to accountants!
Hey I think we should go into business selling cars to accountants!
I'm in!
Mine, too. I think that was a plot point in The Heist. Just kidding, Bageljoey. Thanks for the example but I can't say I will ever really "get it."
You're welcome.
I don't think it is really a big deal anyway. It is one technical trick some investors use to try to gain an insight, but there are zillions of those and everybody thinks their trick is the best.
Personally, I think the best investing strategy was to buy AAPL several years ago and sit on it. It may not sound fancy, but the results are outstanding!
I'd agree there, but don't fret, you can fix it .. you simply need to learn to respond without the snarky tone, which may not be intentional but is never the less, coming over that way time and time again.
It's a happy day, let's all sing Kumbaya and move on
Yeah, and maybe one of these days you'll read my posts for what I'm actually saying and not interpret every disagreement as an insult.
You are ignoring that Apple is spending their cash, they are just making more than they are spending. There a numerous reports of Apple investing billions in lump sum investments to other companies. This is not a bad thing for investors and you can look at today's stock price to see that Apple's actions have increased share holder value since they went from red to black.
All you're really saying here is that Apple has a cost of doing business. Well, sure. But the free cash accumulation is happening after paying for operating costs, and after their various investments. So it's net, and the sum of the net continues to grow, and at an accelerating rate.
I am all for a company investing in growth. This is the purpose of capital. I've said this many, many times in these threads. But when it becomes very, very clear that a company can't come anywhere close to spending their free cash on growth, then question of what other thing(s) they should do with the money naturally arises.
As for operating in the red, Apple hasn't done that in a long time. You don't even want to think about what would happen if Apple reported a loss.
Just a scenario for you to consider: Apple's board decides to pay stockholders a very generous annual dividend of 2%, which I will round up to $10 a share. The total cost to Apple's cash flow would be $9.3b. That's only a bit more than half the amount of cash they added to the stockpile in just the last quarter alone. It could easily amount to not more than 20% of their annual free cash flow -- which means they could still stockpile 80%, or $50b more every year, even assuming that the accumulation rate doesn't increase.
So tell me again, how does this damage Apple's ability to do anything?
Yeah, and maybe one of these days you'll read my posts for what I'm actually saying and not interpret every disagreement as an insult.
It's water under the bridge. I should have ignored you, my bad.
Just a scenario for you to consider: Apple's board decides to pay stockholders a very generous annual dividend of 2%, which I will round up to $10 a share. The total cost to Apple's cash flow would be $9.3b. That's only a bit more than half the amount of cash they added to the stockpile in just the last quarter alone. It could easily amount to not more than 20% of their annual free cash flow -- which means they could still stockpile 80%, or $50b more every year, even assuming that the accumulation rate doesn't increase.
So tell me again, how does this damage Apple's ability to do anything?
Even if we consider the US investors and their US cash holdings that seems like it would still be doable and I have no problem with Apple doing whatever they want with their money so long as it doesn't negatively affect their business or their valuation.
My question is why must it be done for the company to be successful? Why do you require them to Dellify their cash by "giving the money back to the stockholders" instead of investing it? I certainly didn't buy AAPL because I expected quarterly dividends; I have other stocks for that.
Have you considered that Apple is saving up for something big? Maybe they want to eventually bring the production back to the US with robots that run off of iOS or buy the Cook Islands and relocate their HQ, or make their space ship campus into real spaceship.
Hey I think we should go into business selling cars to accountants!
I'm in!
I just want to be the guy who details the cars before they are sold