brucemc

About

Username
brucemc
Joined
Visits
89
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,049
Badges
1
Posts
1,541

Reactions

1.7KLike68Informative

  • UBS increases Apple price target to $170, sees 'iPhone 8' commanding premium pricing

    brucemcbrucemc
    I think Apple is set to perform well in 2018 and 2019 on the financial front, but not just because of the next couple of releases of iPhone.  Rather, Apple show see good performance across all lines
    - new iPhones should allow for some high single digit growth averaged over a couple years (I don't think a super cycle like the 6 is in the offing)
    - wearables are showing signs of taking off. Expect very good AW growth and explosion of AirPods
    - iPad stabilization. Perhaps some revenue growth, but at least ending the bleeding. 
    - Services now contributing meaningfully (growth has been there for some time, but the size is now moving the needle)
    - Mac hopefully coming off of a low with some very small growth 

    It is the narrative about the new categories and services, together with some small growth of the other lines, which should drive the stock higher. 
    muthuk_vanalingam

  • A very false narrative: Samsung Galaxy S8 vs Apple's iPhone

    brucemcbrucemc
    It is helpful to read some of the reviews of the S8 from sources that are not just focused on "it is new & cool, so it is great!!!'.  Walt Mossberg provided a review on The Verge (yes, the Verge), and it is useful reading for those that tout the iPhone as boring, and Samsung as leading the smartphone race.  Not surprisingly, Mossberg gave strong marks to the design aspect of large screen in smallish case, and the screen itself.  All sources seem to agree that it is a great looking phone with a bright/colourful screen.

    However, there were a significant number of not-so-great and even cons:
    - Battery life was good.  Nothing that stuck out as great.
    - Very tall shape that often sticks out of pockets, restricts one-handed use, and the s/w accessibility feature to deal with this is not as good as iPhone or Pixel.
    - Screen is very good, but (as often with Samsung phones) oversaturated
    - Camera is very good, but not as good as Pixel in the Android crowd (iPhone was not compared)
    - Bixby assistant was "unimpressive"

    Major downsides:
    - Biometric security.  "..the Galaxy S8 had the least reliable, most frustrating, biometric security measures I’ve ever tested. The fingerprint sensor has been moved to a high, awkward position on the rear of the phone, and I found that it constantly failed to recognize either of my two index fingers. Even enrolling the fingers was slow and jerky.  Facial recognition, in addition to being relatively insecure according to Samsung, also failed almost all the time for me. And the same was true for a more secure method, Iris recognition, which was slow even in the minority of times it worked.  The result: I wound up typing in a pin almost all the time."

    - Bloatware/Software.  "And then there was the bloatware. Samsung has cut way back on its once laughably complex settings menus and some other features of its Android skin. But it still thinks it’s a software company. So, on my test unit, there was a passel of unnecessary, duplicative Samsung software, and another folder chock full of bloatware from the carrier, T-Mobile.  I much prefer the clean experiences on my iPhone and Pixel. So does everyone I know, Maybe it’s finally time for Samsung to emulate Apple and use its brand power to bar preinstalled carrier software. Maybe it’s also time for Samsung to either get fabulous at its own software or stop trying"

    http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/18/15333752/walt-mossberg-review-samsung-galaxy-s8
    tmayStrangeDaysronnwatto_cobra

  • Apple, Amazon, Google identified as bidders for Toshiba's NAND flash memory business

    brucemcbrucemc
    gmgravytrain said:
    The main reason I want Apple to grab Toshiba's memory business is because Amazon is going after it.  Seemingly, Wall Street sees Jeff Bezos as a god CEO who can do no wrong.  There's always this endless praise for Amazon.  Everything Amazon does is said to be some sort of a genius move and that's why Amazon has a P/E of 141 to Apple's 17.  Amazon is called the great disrupter and the big investors love disrupters, especially ones who will try to put all other companies out of business.  I'd like to see Apple try to get some sort of disruptive business that will give them some sort of an advantage over other companies.  Apple is being totally disrespected and is always being called a stagnating company.  Maybe a new business will give Apple some respectability in Wall Street's eyes and boost the P/E to at least Google or Microsoft's P/E territory.  I don't hear any Amazon investors moaning about Amazon trying to acquire Toshiba's memory business and Amazon isn't even all that profitable or has anywhere close to Apple's reserve cash pile.

    Apple can best afford Toshiba's memory business and certainly is a better fit than either Google or Amazon.  At least Apple can use those chips considering all the devices Apple sells.  Maybe the company as plenty of IP Apple can use or keep out the hands of rival chipmakers.  NAND Flash is used in SSDs and supposedly SSDs are going to be replacing spinning hard drives within the next few years.  I don't think Apple would be making a huge mistake by grabbing a NAND maker.

    I mainly see Apple doing this as a defensive move against Amazon and Google.  I'm getting annoyed how those FANG stocks get all the praise and respect of being perfect companies and Apple gets zilch respect.  Why give Amazon more leverage to grab a higher P/E?  A P/E of 140 or so is already ludicrous for Amazon.  If a company such as Intel Corp. just bought Mobileye for $15B then I'm sure Apple should be able to get Toshiba's memory business without batting an eye.
    Making a large acquisition decision because some other company may do so is pretty bad management.  Fortunately Apple has demonstrated that they do not operate in that manner.  Apple makes purchases based on their strategic plan - not reacting to some other company's plan - especially if that company (Amazon) is in an entirely different market.  Apple almost always makes acquisitions to fill technology gaps - not for production (like this rumour), and not to buy revenue streams.

    Let Wallstreet fawn over Amazon.  The love affair will end sometime. Now, Amazon's share price is not quite as overvalued as some think based on P/E ratio, because it has always deliberately taken any "E" and spent it (sometimes wisely, sometimes not).  Amazon is best valued on a cash flow basis - but even here they are certainly "very highly valued".  History has shown that companies with very valuations to earnings or cash flow eventually come down to earth.
    muthuk_vanalingamargonaut

  • No, an LTE-equipped Apple Watch will not come with a physical SIM card

    brucemcbrucemc
    rigormortis said:
    well first of all, there is no real legitimate reason to include LTE in a watch. all you need is 3G. AT&T says for a watch you do not need more then 50 mb a month! second of all, if they go apple sim, then that means its just going to be like the iPad. and Verizon will want none of that. and no one on verizon will be able to use it. so you will need to have a regular sim card slot. you are free to express your own opinions on your insider website , but lets deal with the facts. and lets be realistic.
    LTE utilizes a global standard (although across different bands in different countries), where as 3G was split between UMTS and CDMA (your Verizon example).  LTE is also more power efficient.  Given the LTE deployment state, there is no need for Apple to support the older 3G technologies on a device category like Apple Watch.

    No compelling reason for a cellular Apple Watch to support voice - data only would support 90+% of all use cases (supporting voice via VoLTE, FaceTime, Skype, etc...).
    chiaStrangeDayspatchythepirate

  • Apple an 'antifragile monopoly,' more secure than critics believe, analyst claims

    brucemcbrucemc
    Everybody needs to chill out. Go and listen to the Critical Path podcast (latest one), which is hosted by Horace Dediu, who did the work. He provides all of the context around the few snippets that AI has used here in this article.  

    He is not implying that Apple has a traditional monopoly at all - he clearly states the opposite. He basically talks about the big 5 in tech, and how the reason for the much higher P/E ratios attributed to the others is that they are perceived to be "like" monopolies (none of them are traditional monopolies either).  The clear leaders in their field, with no real competition in their core business, and big barriers to entry. 

    Apple is perceived the opposite - no end of competition. Always under attack. The iPhone killer is right around the corner.  Hence discounted to the S&P 500 average, while the others are much higher. But he then looks at pricing power, and notes that Apple has maintained or increased pricing in most products over time. iPhone and Mac at highest levels in recent quarter.  That Apple has very strong market power like a monopoly.  And that with Facebook and Google their price per unit of advertising is going down (overall revenue still rising of course). So he simply asks the rhetorical question - who is the monopoly.  And perhaps, given Apple has been in business for 40 years, perhaps they are not so vulnerable after all. 

    Anti-fragile is used due to the fact that Apple does face competition all of the time, and thus in order to succeed over the decades they have developed the culture, processes and approach on how to deal with that. Likening it to someone who is exposed to infections all the time and develops resistance. And this might make Apple stronger in the long run than some of the firms who are like de facto monopolies. 

    But what does he know vs the geniuses on the AI forum...
    bestkeptsecretdelreyjonesradarthekatStrangeDaysnetmagecornchip