or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Development issues may cause later-than-expected debuts of 'iPhone 5S,' low-cost iPhone & next iPad mini
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Development issues may cause later-than-expected debuts of 'iPhone 5S,' low-cost iPhone & next... - Page 2

post #41 of 140
What a bs story.
What sort of development issues are they talking about? Yeah, none!
post #42 of 140
The
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Steve is dead.  Move on.  The company has lost value since Tim took over.  That much is fact.
The company has also gain market value since he took over. People like to point out the bad, never the good, I knew Steve, and I know Tim, he is a good Cheif Executive, Steve loved his company and he loved Tim, he left Tim in charge for a reason!
post #43 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Did I say market cap?  I said the value of Apple.  Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple?  Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt.  Go look that up and tell me what you find.  I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook.  It is fact.

 

Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation.  If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap?  Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value.  Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either.  Which company is worth more?  In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A.  Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.

Why should I have to go look it up? That's right, because you've basically invented something out of whole cloth to try to win.

 

Tell me the exact formula and all input variables so that I can calculate this "enterprise value" for myself. Oh and please tell me specifically what it was prior to August 24, 2011 and what it is today. So that I can make sure I'm calculating it as you have.

post #44 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

The company needs to grow earnings for the stock to have any chance to go higher.

 

I can careless about "investors" in regards to Apple. As far as I care, the stock can get de-listed. I think that would help remove this stupid and needless distraction that has come about in recent years. (We can also hope the junk bond managers get de-listed as well.)

 

Apple is not having a problem with making a solid profit. Apple still has momentum and enough longevity insurance to keep the faith of those who are perfectly happy using their products. 

 

In summary... Short sellers, Junk Bond Managers, and all of their kin can piss off. Those that are in for the long haul will do just find and that includes all types of Apple purchases be them on paper or in tangible products. 

post #45 of 140
They just couldn't find a battery that lasted longer than 10 minutes...
post #46 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Did I say market cap?  I said the value of Apple.  Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple?  Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt.  Go look that up and tell me what you find.  I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook.  It is fact.  

 

Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation.  If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap?  Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value.  Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either.  Which company is worth more?  In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A.  Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.

Just to respond to this again from: http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value

 

August 23rd 2011 EV is $333.40 billion.

April 11th, 2013 EV is $392.88 billion.

 

Guess what?  That's nearly $60 billion higher.  Looks like you're wrong again!  Please shift the goalpost to another supposed metric that shows AAPL is worth less now than before Tim Cook took over.

post #47 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Invent? Its basic finance 101.

 

Value of Apple was 294 billion when Tim took over, 272 billion today.

 

Google value over same timeframe 127 billion to 217 billion

Samsung value over same timeframe  86 billion to 188 billion

 

I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to make money on the stock.  If the value of the company goes up, the stock will follow.  Yes, stock is up since Tim took over, but under his leadership, the value of the company has decreased while its two biggest competitors have massively increased.  Fact.

If it's basic Finance 101 then why do your figures not match up to these: http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value ?

post #48 of 140

"The never verified launch may face delays". But basically just so the analysts can cover the asses either way

post #49 of 140

Oh and Yahoo says that AAPL's current EV is $357.59 billion.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL

 

So it looks like it's not such a "Finance 101" thing is it since you say one thing and two different sources say something different.

post #50 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic View Post

That's funny because the facts don't bear you out. When Tim took over the market cap was $348 Billion. It is right now over $408 billion.  Now unless you use some sort of different math than the rest of the world the figure from today is 60 billion larger than the figure when he took over. Didn't actually expect me to look that up, did you?
Did I say market cap?  I said the value of Apple.  Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple?  Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt.  Go look that up and tell me what you find.  I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook.  It is fact.  

Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation.  If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap?  Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value.  Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either.  Which company is worth more?  In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A.  Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.

Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
post #51 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Did I say market cap?  I said the value of Apple.  Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple?  Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt.  Go look that up and tell me what you find.  I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook.  It is fact.  

 

 

Umm... and where are you getting your data to fit into the EV model? Your are simply F.O.S! Here is a chart that shows Apple's EV trend... and as you will note.... Apple's EV is higher today then it was under Steve.

 

http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value

post #52 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.

And considering I see multiple sources saying differing "enterprise value" it seems like he was just flailing around to try to find some metric that he could use to win.  Because stock price is higher than any point before Tim Cook took over as CEO.  Market cap is still $60 billion higher than before he took over.  Revenues are larger than they ever were before he took over.  The company has had its most profitable quarters ever under Tim Cook.  One can go on and on about all the metrics that disprove him and the other trolls.

post #53 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong.  Mkt cap is $409 billion today.  They reported $137 billion of cash at year end.  No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion.  EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.

 

You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.

So everyone is wrong but you, right? So Yahoo is also wrong when it says it's $357 billion? Why should I believe that your figures are right and everyone source I've found is wrong? Because you say so?

post #54 of 140
He has no Mac Pro on his roadmap, so obviously this is all bunk.
post #55 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

  Yes, yahoo is wrong if it says Apple's EV is $357 billion.  Do the damn math yourself, it is very easy calculation.

Why should I believe you that Yahoo and the other site I found is wrong?

post #56 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post   (Edited into points)

1. Not everyone is out to short Apple stock, that comment has become nothing more than a cheap catch phrase on this forum when people don't like what they hear.

 

2. The fact that Apple created a bottleneck at the end of 2012 this isn't that hard to grasp. An iMac that took forever to come out.

 

3. rMBP that has seen several price drops because it was overpriced and underpowered. A price drop mid cycle by Apple and added drops by authorized dealers. When was the last time Apple had to drop the price of a product mid cycle? Issue like these are the reason for the drop in stock.

 

1. When Apple are still making so much profit, why else would it seemingly be knocked & held lower than it was before compared to other shares that flying at        the moment, compared to how the other co's are doing?

 

2. New mass manufacturing processes can have teething problems & some be harder to get right than others, compared to building 1 or 2 prototypes in labs, but once the problems are sorted...

 

3. Current financial climates? Done to help boost sales of more expensive models during these trying times? Not to mention things get cheaper to make once they are produced more & more, partly as a result of point 2?

 

And no, I have no shares in AAPL, unfortunately. Just saying why things could be.

post #57 of 140

Another site that has the same figure as Yahoo: http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/AAPL--Current_Valuation

 

It's rather an amazing coincidence that all these sites are calculating "enterprise value" wrong, no?

post #58 of 140

And yet another website that shows EV being higher under Tim Cook than before him: http://www.quandl.com/OFDP-Open-Financial-Data-Project/DMDRN_AAPL_EV-Apple-Inc-AAPL-Enterprise-Value

 

And their source data: http://www.ofdp.org/damodarans/data?code=AAPL

 

I've still yet to see why this "EV" is the one and only definitive metric by which a company should be judged. Secondly, if it's "Finance 101" why are there so many varied calculations of it?

post #59 of 140
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post
Apple on the other hand has been delaying releases, releasing products than can't meet demand or releasing half-baked apps such as maps.

 

This sentence basically summarizes your lies. Why not just post it instead?


Three straight earnings misses…

 

lol.


Nobody believes in Tim… 

 

lol.


It is baffling that the analysts appear to have potentially been more in touch with what sales were doing than the CEO.

 

It's baffling that you think this is in any way the case.


Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post
Why doesn't the company want to give consumers what they want.


Maybe if you stopped pretending that people want a larger display, you'd know the answer to that.


Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either.  Which company is worth more?  In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A.

 

Could you maybe explain how this makes any sense whatsoever?

post #60 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong.  Mkt cap is $409 billion today.  They reported $137 billion of cash at year end.  No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion.  EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.

You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.

Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
post #61 of 140

But don't dare bring up the fact that all of these same issues (delays, supply constraints, poor product launches, etc.) happened numerous times under Steve Jobs because they get hand-waved away because "TEH EV IS LOWER NOW THAN BEFORE!! ZOMG!!!!".

post #62 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

It would be foolish to think that the iMac shortage in some way didn't impact the stock price. And no it's not only about iPhones it's about all iOS devices. Strong iPhone sales without strong iPad and iPad mini sales would cause the stock price to drop further. Wall Street cares about perception always have and always will.
Ok they care about iPhones and iPads. I still think they could give a shit less about Macs. Or if they care about them it's only the extent they can use them to push FUD and G&D. Case in point everyone focusing on IDC numbers when Gartner and NPD show completely different figures.
post #63 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.

And it's even debatable that his statement about EV being lower is even correct. All sites I can find that give historical trends on EV show it higher today than before Tim Cook took over. He was probably furiously searching for some random metric he could use to try to win his debate about how Apple is worse off now than before.  Because having revenues double under your watch and having the most profitable quarters in company history clearly show that Tim Cook is failing at his job.

post #64 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Ok they care about iPhones and iPads. I still think they could give a shit less about Macs.

 

You can give a shit about something.

 

You can care less about something.

 

You can be scared shitless by something.

 

But you can't give a shit less about anything.

 

Didn't your English teacher teach you the proper use of shit?

post #65 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
So basically this guy is saying all that cash Apple is hoarding is a bad thing. Question is how would it be any different under Steve? Lets not forget the dividend happened under Tim's watch. And there weren't major acquisitions under Steve's watch so its highly unlikely Apple would have acquired Nexflix, Yahoo, Pandora or Twitter if Steve was still around.
post #66 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

You can give a shit about something.

You can care less about something.

You can be scared shitless by something.

But you can't give a shit less about anything.

Didn't your English teacher teach you the proper use of shit?
Sigh...fine...couldn't give a shit less.
post #67 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post

 

You can give a shit about something.

 

You can care less about something.

 

You can be scared shitless by something.

 

But you can't give a shit less about anything.

 

Didn't your English teacher teach you the proper use of shit?

"Could care less" has been used for over 3 decades in common use. Get over it. The English language is not based on rules set by grammarians and grammar nazis, but by how it's used by the average writers and speakers of the language.

post #68 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

  Yes, yahoo is wrong if it says Apple's EV is $357 billion.  Do the damn math yourself, it is very easy calculation.

 

1rolleyes.gif1oyvey.gif1rolleyes.gif

post #69 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Sure. Apple has NEVER introduced new hardware without having a new version of the software available at launch. /s


Actually, the important thing to note is the connection between iOS and iPhone. The reality is that no, there hasn't been an iOS release without corresponding new iPhone hardware. iPads, iPods and iPads, yes... there have been releases without a new iOS, but not a new iPhone.

It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
It's only after you've lost everything that you're free to do anything.

Tyler Durden | Fight Club
Reply
post #70 of 140

Instead of an elegant product launch, 2012 marked the most ineffective, clumsy, and amateurish product "dump" in Apple's history! Apple's pipeline has been on Queer Street ever since -- too many Retina Macs, not enough iMacs, not enough iPhone's, took many iPad's. If Cook & Co. blow the next product launch or can't fill the pipeline it would be the opportune time for Apple to start searching for a CEO who knows how to deliver products and can satisfy AAPL investors. 

post #71 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic View Post

I didn't miss any point.  .... The issue Apple has faced are no worse than they always have with both software and hardware being delayed.....

I am afraid that you did miss his point altogether.

 

He was primarily arguing that the competitive situation today in phones is different (and phones do account for 50% of Apple's revenues). As a result, delays will have more severe negative impacts now than in the past.

 

You may disagree with that argument, but your response does not remotely say why.

post #72 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

Instead of an elegant product launch, 2012 marked the most ineffective, clumsy, and amateurish product "dump" in Apple's history! Apple's pipeline has been on Queer Street ever since -- too many Retina Macs, not enough iMacs, not enough iPhone's, took many iPad's. If Cook & Co. blow the next product launch or can't fill the pipeline it would be the opportune time for Apple to start searching for a CEO who knows how to deliver products and can satisfy AAPL investors. 

Riiiight.  As opposed to 2008 where there weren't enough iPhone 3Gs so AT&T had to turn away customers, the 17" MacBook pros were delayed, the MacBook Airs were delayed, the Apple TV "Take 2" software update was delayed, the Final Cut Server shipped more than a year late, Steve Jobs had to apologize for the poorly planned MobileMe launch, etc.?  Yeah, sounds like a bang up year that was, right?

post #73 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I am afraid that you did miss his point altogether.

 

He was primarily arguing that the competitive situation today in phones is different (and phones do account for 50% of Apple's revenues). As a result, delays will have more severe negative impacts now than in the past.

 

You may disagree with that argument, but your response does not remotely say why.

No, I got his point but it's wrong. If those delays were so costly now how were they able to pull out record quarters of both revenue and profit for the company?

post #74 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic View Post

"Could care less" has been used for over 3 decades in common use. Get over it. The English language is not based on rules set by grammarians and grammar nazis, but by how it's used by the average writers and speakers of the language.


Where did anyone criticize the use of "could care less"?

post #75 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


Where did anyone criticize the use of "could care less"?

"Didn't your English teacher teach you the proper use of shit?"

 

You're right.  That sounds like nothing but praise.

post #76 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

I am amazed as the lack of basic finance knowledge.  If you want to buy a widget business that costs $1 million and you put in your own money for half and borrow the other half, you have a capitalization that is 50% equity and 50% debt.  Lets say you immediately take the company public, so the market cap is 500k and you have 500k of debt,  Did the value of the business you bought for 1 million just drop to 500k because that is the market cap?  Of course not, the value of the business is still $1 million.,  All companies choose to capitalize themselves differently.  The only way to normalize things is if you look at enterprise value, which is mkt cap less net debt.  That tells you what a business is worth by looking at capitalization on an apples-to-apples basis.

You keep bringing up this metric but yet you've yet to explain why it's the one and only definitive metric of success. Why should anyone care more about "enterprise value" over things like record-high revenues, profits and non-existant debt? Also, you've only provided hand-waving for why we should accept your values of the EV over any other website that has other numbers. Your word is not a reason.

post #77 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123 View Post

The past is the past, keep living in it.  The stock market is a future looking entity and it is saying record profits are a thing of the past.  Who gives a crap about record revenue if your gross margins are getting squeezed such that non of it hits the bottom line.  Take them for what they are worth, but analyst estimates are for negative earnings growth.

Notice how I said "revenue and profit". Apple has never been more profitable than under Tim Cook. Your deflections fail to work.

post #78 of 140

As far as Apple's manufacturer showing a decline in revenues, they also make Amazon products as well as others. Perhaps the miss is from that source...

post #79 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I am afraid that you did miss his point altogether.

He was primarily arguing that the competitive situation today in phones is different (and phones do account for 50% of Apple's revenues). As a result, delays will have more severe negative impacts now than in the past.

You may disagree with that argument, but your response does not remotely say why.

YOU missed his point. He's primarily saying that Tim Cook is incompetent.

And he's confused in his argument, saying that Apple is becoming reactive, not proactive, in REACTING to the new competitive challenges.

Applelunatic is doing some heroic work here. Don't confuse him with misinterpretation.
post #80 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic View Post

How silly.  Let's look at just some stories from the last couple of years under Steve's reign.

 

[Links to stories about delays and errors clipped]

 

Should I go on?  I can post many more of these if you wanted.  People like yourself seem to have next to zero historical perspective.

 

I'm not sure I get what your point is here... Apple screws up product launches all the time, so more delays are nothing to worry about?

 

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but if that IS the point, it's not terribly comforting.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Development issues may cause later-than-expected debuts of 'iPhone 5S,' low-cost iPhone & next iPad mini