or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by backtomac

An iPad 2 wouldn't be a "premium" tablet...the iPad 3 would be. I'll back off the statement (slightly) I made where I suggested Apple strive for Windows type market share in tablets. But they should strive for iPod type market share. And like with iPod they will need to address the lower end of the market. Maybe not at $299 but it's gong to have to be less than $499.
1) Yes I understand that Amazon looses money on every Kindle they sell. And I have seen their profits, (oddly Amazon has a higher P/E, not sure why) ect .... But Apple should sell a lower cost iPad to try to blunt any momentum the Kindle is gaining. Perhaps a $299 isn't possible but a sub $500 iPad 2 certainly is possible that can still be profitable. Remember that Amazon does not have the same cost structure and economy of scale in manufacturing that Apple enjoys. 2) I...
I accept jragosta's reasoning but I think your example above misses the point. Apple should be striving for a Windows type market share in tablets. That means choking competitors like the Kindle in their infancy.
OK. That makes sense. Fair enough.
How do you know they would loose money on a $299 iPad? iSupply tear downs suggest that isn't the case. Obviously they wouldn't make as much profit but a $299 might sell a lot of units and new users might upgrade to the latest and greatest version down the road.
I don't know about that. Yes the iPad is selling well, but the Kindle has gained some traction. A $299 iPad would pretty much stop it in its tracks. A $399 iPad will definitely help some but a $299 iPad 2 would turn the Kindle into a BB playbook...hard to sell, even at a loss. Amazon might have to resort to RIM's tactics and have them stolen from delivery trucks so they can collect the insurance money.
Apple aren't being valued as a growth stock now anyway. Current PE is 15 while earnings growth is 50%. There's no need to fear a dividend dropping Apple's share price. It looks like its already priced in.
They'd just be pissing away money on a dying company. AMD don't fabricate chips any more. Global Foundry does this for them. AMD designs generally have been a poor match for the computers Apple make. LLano may be an exception, we don't really now. But the fabrication deficiencies, poor yields and lagging Intel as far as shrinking the process, that have plagued AMD would still continue even if Apple bought them.
No. And I'm not opposed to a buy back which you have said that you prefer to dividends.But this is why you invest in a growth stock like Apple. It has reached the pinnacle. It is fast growing company that can easily afford to pay dividends. Its reached a point where it can be a growth and income stock. If it doesn't pay dividends (or buy back shares) now when should it? They have 100 billion in cash and no debt. How much 'better' does Apple's balance sheet have to get...
I don't know the legal obligations but I would argue that there is definitely an ethical obligation to reward shareholders. If not, why would any rational person invest in stocks? I like Apple computers but I'm invested in the stock because I think it can make me money. Because its a profitable company. Apple knew well the implications of becoming a publicly listed company when it did so. You invite the public to be owners of the business. To pretend otherwise would be...
New Posts  All Forums: