or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by melgross

I don't care what you believe. That's what he said, and he wouldn't say that during a financial call if it weren't true, because any statement made during a financial call is considered to be part of the financial statement, and subject to financial rules regarding truth in reporting. And unlike many other companies, Apple is conservative in their financial reporting.It's also something that's very easily checked.
They do that when phones aren't selling. That's a much higher subsidy than Apple gets for its current 6/6+ lineup. And considering how Apple is hammering Samsung's sales, that does say that people would rather pay more for Apple's product, which strengthens my argument even further.
Ok, so let's look at reality here. Cook has said that 75% of iPhone sales around the world, which includes the USA, are off contract, at full price. That really does take away the premise that Apple needs subsidies to sell phones. And when you look at the reality that Apple's phones are not subsidized at higher rates than comparable phones in the same markets, that takes away the rest of the argument.So the watch is paid for in full up front. So what? Apple phones start at...
Er, no. You are mistaking a supply issue with a manufacturing issue. When a new product line first comes out, and, as is typical with Apple, new technologies and manufacturing methods are being used, there are unanticipated problems in production. That has nothing to do with supply lines.Then there are other issues that have nothing to do with supply lines. One is the anticipated sales numbers. The company thinks that a certain number will be sold, so they intend to...
But industry talk is based upon calender quarters, not those of an individual company's financial year. So he could simply be stating that this quarter, the first of the calender year, a quarter that is traditionally slow for the industry is being predicted to be...
It's very nice of him. I wonder how long it lasts.
Big deal. We'll see if his company is around in a few more years.
You don't have to outright lie, you just paint a picture that isn't quite what it is.
Not really true. It's a small company, that's a very large proportion of its worth. A company uses its stock to purchase smaller companies that will help the company, to back loans, etc. this takes a large portion of that off the table. And the company isn't doing all that well.
Illegal, no, immoral? Maybe. The point is that he's taking a large part of stock that could otherwise be used for better things. There's no evidence that he's worth more than a fraction of that, so economically, it's improper.
New Posts  All Forums: