or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple

post #1 of 299
Thread Starter 
Listening to the Google-enraptured tech media's echo chamber of fears, uncertainties and doubts about the world's most profitable and successful company, you'd never realize that there's an incredible bounty of low hanging fruit waiting for Tim Cook's Apple to harvest, and little but mobile scorched earth left behind Google.

Tim Cook


Apple BCE: Before the Cook Era



It's almost hard to fathom that today's barely-old-enough-to-vote high school seniors were born in a year where anyone with a media badge was essentially required to refer to Apple, Inc. as not only "Apple Computer," but "the beleaguered Apple Computer," due to the fact that the Macintosh maker had been losing money while its software platform strategy continued to flounder.

In 1996, after a half decade of repeatedly starting, abandoning and then switching strategies for modernizing its Macintosh operating system, the company posted its first annual loss: $816 million for the fiscal year. That loss was accompanied by a restructuring that included a layoff of 1,300 employees.

In 1997, Apple's annual loss grew to $1 billion, although two thirds of that ($667 million) were directly connected to the costs of acquiring of Steve Jobs' NeXT and hardware maker Power Computing. Apple returned to profitability the next year, but it took many more years to lose the ubiquitous "beleaguered" tag.

Apple CE: 1998-2014



Today's teenagers have only seen a consistently successful, wildly profitable Apple. While there are now over 80,000 employees who all deserve some credit for Apple's current era of incredible success, it's easy to associate Apple's turnaround to the hiring of Tim Cook in 1998, the pivotal year when the company emerged from beleaguerment and began wowing the public with a disciplined, conservative selection of wildly innovative, attention arresting products.

From 2004 to 2007, Apple's annual gross profits increased 350 percent from $2.4 billion to $8.5 billion, then ballooned more than another 300 percent to reach $26.7 billion in 2010, and again made another leap of more than 260 percent to $71.1 billion for fiscal 2013 (not including the record winter quarter the media has labeled "disappointing" for not being higher than they could imagine on paper).

Other things the tech media have not been able to comprehend include how one company could exert dominating control over the profitable smartphone market with devices that sell into constrained supply while costing more than twice the Average Selling Price of its competitors, or how Apple could similarly dominate the profitable segment of PCs with Macs that cost four times more than the ASP of generic PCs ($1300 versus $301).



The massive Android delusion



Recall that these are the same journalists and pundits who maintained their press credentials through the first half of the 2000s while consistently predicting that cheap MP3 players (including feature phones) would ransack Apple's iPod business.

Rather than acknowledging their error, they have simply changed their predictions over the last decade to assume Apple's iPhone business would likely be eaten up by cheap smartphones powered by Symbian, then Linux, then Windows Mobile, then Android.

They are so fooled by their own propaganda that they seem to honestly believe that Android's 80 percent share of the world's phone shipments capable of running apps is impressive and unprecedented, as if the failed Sun Mobile Java and Adobe Flash Lite didn't similarly claim an identical dominating app platform share of shipping units prior to Google's brand emergence.

In fact, back in 2008, Strategy Analytics was tasked with producing reports about how widespread Flash Lite was as a mobile platform, and how rosy its future was. That data is no longer published by the company, which is now saying the same things about Android.

That same year I spoke at a conference in Malm?, Sweden, telling the mobile developer audience that Sun's then-widespread Mobile Java would face significant threat from Apple's new Cocoa Touch platform. At the time, there was much skepticism as Mobile Java then had an installed base comparable to Android's today.

The primary difference is that both Sun and Adobe earned some platform licensing revenue; Google does not. Google only earns thin mobile profits from advertising, but that's not unique to Android either; before Android became widely distributed, Google earned more lucrative mobile profits from iOS, something that Android's contention with Apple has only hurt as iOS has pulled away from Google's Maps and search services.

Blinding themselves (and their audiences) with a myopic fixation on simplistic percentage comparisons, the tech media has grown confident that Google's 3,890 percent gain in operating profits over the past decade is more impressive than Apple's growth of 13,350 percent.

Google, they like to point out, continued to grow over the past year, incrementing its operating income upward from $12.76 billion to $13.96 billion. Apple actually earned less in 2013 than it did in 2012, despite its revenues increasing by $14 billion (slightly more than Google's year over year revenue increase of $9.65 billion).

However, taking a step back to look at Apple under Cook since the passing of Steve Jobs in late 2011 (at the release of iPhone 4S), Apple's annual gross profits have jumped from $45.6 billion to $71.1 billion, and its operating income has leapt from $34.3 billion to a staggering $50.6 billion over the last two years. Apple's revenues have jumped from $108 billion during Jobs' last year to 2013's industry record shattering revenues of $171 billion.

Over the same two-year period, Google's gross profits have increased from $26.6 billion to $37.9 billion (growth of $11.3 billion compared to Apple's profit growth of $25.5 billion), while its operating income has grown from $11.7 billion to $13.97 (a hike of $2.3 billion versus Apple's $16.3 billion). Google's revenues are also up, from $37.9 billion to $59.3 billion (an increase of $21.4 billion, compared to Apple's revenue growth of $63 billion).

Despite those leaps, Apple's stock has only appreciated by $41, or about 8.3 percent over the past two years. Google's stock has nearly doubled, seeing an increase of 98.5 percent over the same two year period. It's hard to argue that's not delusion in a graph.

two years of AAPL & GOOG


Disregarding the stock price and looking only at performance, it almost appears as if Jobs' passing has hurt Google more than it has affected Apple. Meanwhile, Apple has continued Jobs' legacy of producing meticulously designed premium hardware that the public clamors to pay a premium for even as Google has worked to perpetuate Microsoft's anti-Jobs, Windows/PlaysForSure strategy of broadly distributing software via low end hardware in an attempt to propagate a computing monoculture.

What about Mobile?



The vast expansion of capital accumulation (and therefore potential market power) during Cook's two year tenure as Apple's chief executive since Jobs' passing is tied directly to the massive surge of mobile computing, principally the iPhone but also the iPad, and to a smaller but very significant extent, the expansion of Apple's iTunes and App Store mobile ecosystem flourishing around iOS.



Google is certainly performing amazingly well as a company, but its fortunes are not tied to mobile performance. The vast majority of Google's revenues and profits come from ads connected to the conventional PC desktop.

While Apple owes nearly 90 percent of its revenues to mobile devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod, iTunes and Accessories), Google only attributes around 15 percent of its total revenues to mobile ads and Google Play app sales. That's something the tech media has been suspiciously quiet about, given that the future is clearly mobile, and not the plateauing PC desktop.

It's almost as if Google has completely fumbled its one time chance to claim a major share of the mobile Big Bang that occured between the iPhone's appearance in 2007 and the industry-wide cooling of the smartphone market that appeared to begin in 2013.

Sure, Google can be associated with the broad use of Android (especially if you count both official and unofficial forks of the platform that really don't benefit Google at all), but the same could have been said of Symbian, Java Mobile, Flash Lite, Linux and other broadly used platforms that failed to really capitalize on their retrospectively brief dynasties before they stumbled into roles as historical footnotes.

As Apple's numbers illustrate, the real money in mobile is not paid search (the keystone of Google's entire business) but in hardware profits. That's not new; it wasn't Sun and Adobe or Linux vendors who were making the money back in the early days of smartphones; it was Nokia and Blackberry, the hardware vendors.

Google's attempts to replicate Apple's success in its Android partnerships with hardware makers has been a disaster for both Google and the majority of its hardware partners outside of Samsung (which owes more of its smartphone success to Apple than to Android). Outside of Samsung, the broad range of Android licensees are nearly all losing money.



And outside of smartphones, other applications for Android have been downright boondoggle-class failures, from 2010's Google TV set top box embarrassment, to 2011's Android @Home stillborn attempt at home automation and the mega-flop of Android 3.0 Honeycomb Tablets, to repeated failures to launch Android-based game consoles and Samsung's ill fated Galaxy Player iPod clone, Galaxy Camera and Galaxy Gear watch.

All are unmitigated failures the tech media has remained virtually silent about, particularly in comparison to their incessant nagging about Apple Maps and the supposed failure of iPhone 5c.

Never mind that iPhone 5c has, by itself, outsold all of Windows Phone licensees shipments put together in the winter quarter. USA Today writer Alistair Barr isn't drawing the same conclusions of doomed fate for Microsoft's entire mobile platform.

Google's mobile failure with Motorola Mobility



On top of all that Android failure, Google's own attempt to replicate an Apple-esque, mobile hardware business has been nothing short of disastrous. After Google was deluded into paying an astronomical $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility by Android's architect Andy Rubin, the company (and the world) gained invaluable data about how difficult it is to copy Apple's footsteps.

Rather than gasping at the price tag, media wonks nearly all chose to defend Google's stratospheric outlay, convincing themselves that Google's official line about how it was a good price for so many patents was anything other than hogwash. The key phrase seeded by Google was that Motorola would "supercharge Android."

Google was forced to pay a premium for the failing smartphone maker because Motorola was the only company exclusively making Android phones. Motorola threatened to consider making Windows Phones, and that was enough for Google's executives to write a virtually blank check. So in a sense, Motorola did super charge Google, but not in the way Android fans expected.In a sense, Motorola did super charge Google, but not in the way Android fans expected

All of the promises of Google-Motorola synergy turned out to be balderdash. The firm's TV set top boxes were not one gram of help to the search giant's flailing Google TV initiative, its lackluster Xoom tablets did nothing to turn back the failure of Android's expansion beyond phones (Google was forced to partner with Asus to deliver a sellable, if flawed, tablet), and even its seemingly salvageable smartphone operations were unable to turn out a hit under Google's ownership.

By 2013, Google was fully aware that its Motorola subsidiary could not even dream to compete with Apple and Samsung on the high end of smartphones. Instead, Google designed an entry level Moto X model it hoped to sell in volumes high enough to at least establish that consumers wanted Google's "pure Android," at least if offered at a low enough price. Never mind that the failure of a series of Google Nexus phones had already proven that was not the case.

The Moto X was an incredible failure, selling in quantities not even comparable to Microsoft's Zune and Surface disasters. A second attempt to aim even lower with the Moto G again proved that everything Google had been preaching about Android's potential allure if done correctly was simply wrong. Consumers didn't want Google's vision for a smartphone even if it could be delivered without a profit margin and despite incessant advertising and fawning media promotion.

The smoking crater left behind after Google's two year Motorola experiment involved losses of $1.422 billion (excluding the acquisition costs). Compare that to Apple's "beleaguered" $1.149 billion total losses in 1996-1997 (excluding $667 million in acquisition costs), and you might wonder why the tech media is assuming that Lenovo will be able to salvage the remains of Motorola to beat Apple in China, the way they never assumed that Apple would turn around and beat Microsoft after having failed to do so for the prior half decade.

It's almost hard to imagine how much Google would have to screw up before the world could realize that the company is as dependent upon yesterday's PCs as Microsoft, and just as incompetent at making any progress in actually profiting on mobile as Steve Ballmer's decade long train wreck.

Apple's mobile march versus Google's mobile mess



While Google has had no success whatsoever in copying Apple's hardware business, Apple has successfully expanded into Google's core business with in-app advertising, Maps and search assistance with Siri. Interestingly, while the media has been really quiet about Google's complete inability to encroach upon Apple's hardware profits, they've voiced nothing but contempt about Apple's efforts to take on Google, despite Apple's clear successes with ads, Maps and Siri.

It's almost as if Apple has to immediately destroy all competition at launch to even be considered anything other than a failure, while Google can do nothing wrong even while publicly blowing billions of dollars and failing to establish even the smallest of victories outside of its single trick related to selling ad placements during web searches.

As long as the collective mouth of the media is stuffed with a pacifier figure of "80 percent unit share," its members seem content to assume that Google will also win meaningful market share in automotive and smart watches and other new and emerging markets. But if Google had actually captured 80 percent of the success in smartphones, it should be reporting a similar percentage of revenues and profits: four times Apple's mobile performance.

Google is not reporting revenues four times as high as Apple's mobile revenues (that would be over $615 billion, rather than the small fraction of Google's $59.8 billion in 2013 revenues that could be attributed to mobile phones in some way), nor is Google claiming anywhere close to $182 billion in operating profits (Google's number is actually around $5 billion, but again most of that profit is not from mobile).

Anytime you read that Google has claimed some "80 percent share" in the mobile market, you can confidently assume the author is an idiot who only repeats numbers he or she does not comprehend and hasn't given the subject even cursory thought. Google completely botched not only every mobile effort outside of smartphones, but has also failed to capture meaningful success measured in terms of capital within the lucrative smartphone market segment.

Google completely botched not only every mobile effort outside of smartphones, but has also failed to capture meaningful success measured in terms of capital within the lucrative smartphone market segment.

This all happened before



If you think the invisible hand behind the stock market can't be wrong, read the story about Palm, the industry darling of PDAs that was valued by investors as being worth $54 billion in March 2000 on sales of Palm Pilots alone, at a time when the stock market valued all of Apple with a market capitalization of around $17 billion, or far less than half as much.

Apple's revenues and profits were more than ten times higher than Palm's at the time. Investors and the markets they drive can be wildly irrational. Ten years later, Palm was sold off to HP for $1 billion while Apple was valued at $200 billion.

Today, the market values Google at over $404 billion while Apple's market cap is sitting around $485 billion, despite Apple's firm grasp on how to design and market profitable hardware and the ability to innovate not just new mobile device form factors, but also launch entire new software and service businesses.

Back out Apple's $159 billion in cash, and its obvious that investors are clearly deluded into thinking that Google's business is worth significantly more than Apple's, despite being rooted in the PC past and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be unable to materially expand into the present era of mobile devices in a way that matters.

And what about the future?



Apple has publicly outlined plans to expand into automotive with iOS in the Car, a business it has incrementally expanded into successfully over the past decade with iPod and iPhone integration.

The company appears to be gearing up to deliver a new living room experience, building upon its ability to grab the most share over the past seven years of Apple TV (again in stark contrast to Google) as well as its AirPort brand.

Apple also appears to be strategically investing in wearables, a space that has been dominated by iPods, iPhones and iPad for many years.

Google, in contrast, has been hyping glasses that cause headaches, touting robotics acquisitions that have no obvious business model, and floating an interest in chasing Apple into the automotive and wearable arenas after doing such a poor job of capitalizing its cloning of the iPhone and iPad.
post #2 of 299
This is one of the most comprehensive and accurate articles I have read on the state of technology companies today. The comparison between Apple and Google is fair and balanced using only numbers and facts. Google stock would tank if investors actually read this! $GOOG $AAPL
post #3 of 299
I like how the author raged about google's hype. Made me proud to own Apple products 1biggrin.gif
post #4 of 299
Was there a conclusion to this rant not to mention a point? I mean I get it and all, I agree with everything, sure, but, really… anyone with half a brain can see all these things unfolding on a day to day basis. I guess it was a nice recap of 1996-2013, but I felt like there were a couple paragraphs missing about what we'd see in the next five years. If you're going to go, go all out right?
post #5 of 299
Great piece - thank-you
post #6 of 299
As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.

Personally I'd like to see Apple get on a schedule where new products are spaced out over the year rather than all being crammed in to the second half of the year. Announcing products in October and then being basically silent until the following June just allows for a huge vacuum that gets filled with D&G and FUD.

Bottom line is, the way Apple turns this around is with great new products.
post #7 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

...

I second that "..."

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #8 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I second that "..."
double posts because Safari keeps on crashing. It really hates this site.
post #9 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.

 

True. But on the positive site: Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook to invalidate all this nonsense (and force these guys to innovate a new working doomsday scenario, which, given their average level of intelligence, most won't achieve in their lifetime). So far, they released a lot of very solid stuff under him, but certainly no true game changer.

post #10 of 299
Fantastic article, great job Daniel, thank you.
post #11 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

...

So...1confused.gif
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #12 of 299
"So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc."

One thing Apple does well, is work at its own pace and works to get things right. The focus on the product is first and foremost. I am confident that that we will see new products this year. One must also remember is that the people at the company are working on hundreds of small improvements globally every day. Not news head line material, but smart, good for consumers and ultimately review generating improvements and ideas. I won't bore you with examples.

Apple has also been working hard to improve its global roll out strategy, implementation, logistics and support over the last few years. Ie: it is certainly no longer "lets get the US launch done and worry about the rest of the world later". An enormous unseen undertaking.

With regard to the media, there was always push back and negative diggings from a lot of the media (starting in about 2007- 2009) and I would say largely due to the fact that Apple never really "paid" journalists with flights, accommodation, dinners, products etc to the extent that say Samsung etc would. Apple had also pulled back from direct sponsorship of many events over the course of the 2000's. "You guys are doing well, so you don't need us" sort of thing.

So in my experience there had been a slowly building resentment to Apple from certain sections of the media and media related industries. This was keep in check to a degree by Steve. TC is doing OK with this as well in humble opinion. One must also remember that since 2010 a large section of the "media" has simply resorted to publishing information provided to them by "PR teams" and "Consultant firms". In fact real journalists (and photographers) have been fired en masse over the last few years. They simply don't have the time or resources to actually "research" a story.

If we are to be honest, journalism and the "mass media" as we know it are at the beginning of the end or at least a major industry shift. (Music, Film, Media - yes we are living through the new industrial revolution) News, information and entertainment will come more and more to us via tailored "streams" of information and content.

We have a $5000 top of the line TV .... none of the kids even watch it. They get everything on their phones, tablets and occasionally via their old PC (MacBook Air).
post #13 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


double posts because Safari keeps on crashing. It really hates this site.


Sadly, what I do now is to write my posts using Textedit (or whatever separate editor) and when I'm ready I simply copy/paste it into the post before the site gets an opportunity to crash my browser.  It's sad, but it's what I do.

Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac.  Both running Mavericks.  Figure that.

post #14 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Sadly, what I do now is to write my posts using Textedit (or whatever separate editor) and when I'm ready I simply copy/paste it into the post before the site gets an opportunity to crash my browser.  It's sad, but it's what I do.


Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac.  Both running Mavericks.  Figure that.
Yeah I've started doing that too. iOS 7.1 can't come soon enough!
post #15 of 299
I long for the day we can all say: "Google, remember them?"
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
"See her this weekend. You hit it off, come Turkey Day, maybe you can stuff her."
- Roger Sterling
Reply
post #16 of 299
Another terrific article worth my time in reading. Well done.
post #17 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.

Personally I'd like to see Apple get on a schedule where new products are spaced out over the year rather than all being crammed in to the second half of the year. Announcing products in October and then being basically silent until the following June just allows for a huge vacuum that gets filled with D&G and FUD.

Bottom line is, the way Apple turns this around is with great new products.

Rubbish.

When Jobs launched the iPhone AND iPad they were universally scorned, rubbished, ridiculed, laughed at, etc by the majority of the tech press and Apple's competitors.

Nothing, I repeat nothing has changed.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #18 of 299
Amen. You forgot to mention the Google wallet disaster.
A stolen technology from PayPal which amounted to nothing.

We'll see how the Apple payments effort materializes.
We already know that iBeacon is already making major progress.

Time will tell.
post #19 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

True. But on the positive site: Apple only needs to release one single landmark product under Cook to invalidate all this nonsense

For better or worse, I don't think this is true. The first x number of products will be credited to Jobs. Unless they flop. Then Cook will be "credited".
post #20 of 299
Spot on. Very good article.
post #21 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.

 

Apple wasn't given the benefit of the doubt under Jobs, quite the opposite. Apple's stock peaked a year after Jobs's death, under Cook. The P/E has never been great, except for a brief period when the stock rallied under Cook. Apple is always discounted in the media.

post #22 of 299
So long as tech media are dependent on Google search results for traffic and ad dollars you can expect this lie to continue. People are afraid (and with good reason) of Google retaliation.

Hopefully the EU gets after Google more on the Android front and really bears its teeth. Google's monopoly on search must not continue unchecked and that is why I am really hoping for a resurgent Yahoo and Facebook and Twitter to start gobbling up mobile ad revenues and starve the Google beast as the transition to mobile continues..

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply

cut the tech garbage and check me out at

www.appletechspot.com

Reply
post #23 of 299

I don't like the division of Apple's history in to BCE and CE eras, as if Tim was the real reason for Apple's turnaround in the 90s and not Steve. If you think that, then you are making the same mistake as the tech media who love Google so much.

 

Because, those other journalists think that if you can get a big enough market share, you can afford to make such a tiny margin on each device, that no one will be able to compete with you, and it's only a matter of time before you smash your competition. That is why they are always expecting Google to smash Apple any minute. But the underlying error they are making is thinking price is the sole determinant of success/failure, and quality differences don't count for much.

 

And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.

post #24 of 299
I rest my case.

GEWG is a fabrication.
post #25 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


Weird that the site crashes on my MBA (late 2011) consistently, yet is rock-solid on my 2009 iMac.  Both running Mavericks.  Figure that.

This site works great with my 2011 iMac running Mavericks and on my late-2005 intel MBP running 10.4.11 — I suspect your browser may have an add-on or two that is fighting with this site. The ONLY time this site is acting wonky for me is when I'm on here with my iPad using AI's own app, which they intend to hit me up for money to use in a couple weeks... at which time I'll drop-kick that app into the iCloud for keeps.
post #26 of 299

It's just unfortunate that big investors have no faith in Apple or Tim Cook.  Apple shareholders will continue to lose out for whatever reasons.  Over the past year or so, Apple's percentage institutional investors hasn't budged.  It's still around 61% according to Google's financial data, down from 68% in early 2012.  Even long-term institutions think owning Apple is a waste of money.  I guess Apple's dividend isn't even large enough to make the institutional investors salivate.  I really just don't understand how Apple became so toxic to investors considering the fundamentals are still very good, no layoffs, openings of more retail stores, getting the iPhone on more carriers, etc.

 

Apple can do no right and Google can do no wrong.  Every single day, Google's share price climbs higher and higher and it doesn't even seem as if they're doing anything special except for acquiring robot-connected companies.  I guess Google shareholders and investors believe Google is going to corner the robotics industry in a few years, leap-frogging over all the other established robotics companies.  Absolutely nothing spooks Google investors.  Google's 3 Stooges, Schmidt, Page and Brin now have Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field working for them.  Tim Cook is doing nothing effective enough to pull in investors or to slow down Google's rapid growth.  Apple can't stop Android  from growing exponentially, either.

 

As an Apple shareholder, I've pretty much resigned myself that Google will eventually pass Apple in market cap and have a P/E of around 40 while Apple's P/E continues to compress around to where Exxon Mobil's P/E is at the mid 12s.  Apple's share price can't hold onto any sort of momentum.  It goes up a bit and then just collapses every quarter.  Considering Apple is sitting on so much reserve cash and has so many options to choose from it's really rather disheartening.  I know Apple isn't going out of business for a long time but it appears the share price has been capped below $600 and there's nothing much more to look forward to.

post #27 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.

You're fussing over semantics. The question is, "Did Apple's management inculcate his genius or did it get buried with his body?" Steve spent a lot of time passing along the culture of innovation and a sense of values to his management team. If they "got it," then Apple will continue just fine, if not, then Apple will soon flounder. This article seems to say that CE, Apple's management, headed up by Tim, "Got it!"

To some degree there is a parallel between Apple and IBM on this matter. If you look at what IBM did to preserve what Watson brought to the company, and what Apple has done as well with Jobs.
post #28 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post

Apple fanboy blogs seem to love talking about Google and what google does, yet google, android fanboy blogs seem to not give a dam. Sites like android central, Google os, literally pretends apple doesn't exist and Apple blogs seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its weird.

ROFLMAO

 

 Short memory problem or playing dumb like all android fanboys?!! Google os was built by copying iOS fully and completely. Remember this from that arrogant f**** ... the so-called father of android?

 

He was in a cab in Las Vegas, watching a webcast of the presentation. He made the driver pull over so he could see the whole thing. He said, "Holy crap, I guess we're not going to launch that phone."

Honestly, your post is so weird I suggest you google them yourself before rambling.

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply

....the lack of properly optimized apps is one of the reasons "why the experience on Android tablets is so crappy".

Tim Cook ~ The Wall Street Journal - February 7, 2014

Inside Google! 

Reply
post #29 of 299
I'm still waiting for Apple's competition to produce a single game-changer!

Funny how just about every game changing device has come from Apple in the past 10 years.
post #30 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

It's almost hard to imagine how much Google would have to screw up before the world could realize that the company is as dependent upon yesterday's PCs as Microsoft, and just as incompetent at making any progress in actually profiting on mobile as Steve Ballmer's decade long train wreck.

The $64K question, eh? Excellent article and spot on. Actually I think it would be great if Apple's stock price would fall further - it would let them buy more back and further reduce Wall Streets influence. Idiotic, short sighted parasites....
post #31 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post


Apple can do no right and Google can do no wrong.  Every single day, Google's share price climbs higher and higher and it doesn't even seem as if they're doing anything special except for acquiring robot-connected companies.  I guess Google shareholders and investors believe Google is going to corner the robotics industry in a few years, leap-frogging over all the other established robotics companies.  Absolutely nothing spooks Google investors.  Google's 3 Stooges, Schmidt, Page and Brin now have Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field working for them.  Tim Cook is doing nothing effective enough to pull in investors or to slow down Google's rapid growth.  Apple can't stop Android  from growing exponentially, either.

There will come a day of reckoning on Google's stock prices and it won't be pretty. What you bemoaned in your post is a good example of how emotional investors will make what they think is a rational decision based on the "group think" of analysts and market drivers making kiss kiss with darling stocks. We've all seen it. Stocks that defy the numbers keep rising until one day, they are worthless. Want some Enron stock? How about some of Bernie Madoff's hot stock?

By owning Apple stock, you are owning an undervalued stock that some day will pay off. I've watched Eastman Kodak and Xerox (and even Google) squander their market positions and become more and more irrelevant over time. Eventually they implode.
post #32 of 299

You know I don't want to sound like a 100% Fan Boy Fool.

 

But the more you think about if you had to pick a complete eco-system, for let's say an entire "Spaceship" type platform, one with reliability, durability, ease of use, technologies, etc, these conversations are quite trivial.  Honestly.

 

This was another wrap up article of the smart phone segment, and pretty on point.

 

But after you read this you just say to yourself, in the past 30 years there was a serious "Olympics of computing going on" and if you say to yourself hey I have a circuit board and I want to put an OS on it sure, jump for windows or linux.  But if you want a livable, breathable,  environment and you ask yourself who would you plunk all your chips down on?

 

The choice is clear...

 

Apple.

Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #33 of 299
Call it what you will - rant, diatribe, screed - this certainly qualifies as one of DED's best. I'm guessing that he writes stuff like this the day after a meal that's been kicked up several notches with lots of sriracha. When it reaches the other end of his digestive tract, it makes him really crabby!

"Ze coffee she only burn wance ... Ze peppers zey always burn twice!!

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #34 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


You're fussing over semantics. The question is, "Did Apple's management inculcate his genius or did it get buried with his body?" Steve spent a lot of time passing along the culture of innovation and a sense of values to his management team. If they "got it," then Apple will continue just fine, if not, then Apple will soon flounder. This article seems to say that CE, Apple's management, headed up by Tim, "Got it!"

To some degree there is a parallel between Apple and IBM on this matter. If you look at what IBM did to preserve what Watson brought to the company, and what Apple has done as well with Jobs.

Ok, if you believe that Tim and other Apple employees/execs are still inculcated with Steve's quality obsession, then surely we are still in the Steve Era? Because when people face a decision, they decide according to their values, and you are saying they still hold Steve's values. So even from that perspective the BCE/CE thing is still a division by non-fundamentals.

post #35 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornchip View Post

Was there a conclusion to this rant not to mention a point? I mean I get it and all […] but I felt like there were a couple paragraphs missing about what we'd see in the next five years. If you're going to go, go all out right?

He wrote about facts from the past and present so for DED to write about the next five years he's going to have to make shit up. I much prefer him sticking to the facts here, but if he wants to weigh in on how he thinks these companies will evolve I would welcome its own separate article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

As long as Apple's MO is to go 6-9 months with no new products that warrant a keynote or media attention this will continue. Under Steve Apple was given the benefit of the doubt that really cool stuff was always being cooked up in the Cupertino labs. Under Cook Apple isn't given that same benefit of the doubt. So silence basically equates to Apple out of ideas, can't innovate anymore, etc.

Personally I'd like to see Apple get on a schedule where new products are spaced out over the year rather than all being crammed in to the second half of the year. Announcing products in October and then being basically silent until the following June just allows for a huge vacuum that gets filled with D&G and FUD.

Bottom line is, the way Apple turns this around is with great new products.

Adding to hill60 and poke's comments there have been industry leading changes under Cook that are still not copied or copied well from other vendors.

I think we may have discussed this before but there have been no new product categories which is different from "no new products" being released. I am not a fan of the huge gaps within the year with no products or events but the changes that have been made under Cook have been great. WWDC should be in about 4 months demoing iOS 8 and a few month after that we should definitely have new Macs, iPods (since they skipped last year) and a new version of Mac OS X. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Apple TV hits this year along with a new product category, but if a new product category doesn't arrive I am fine with that. Measure twice, cut once.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/16/14 at 9:06am

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #36 of 299
this may be a good article, but i can't get past the 3rd paragraph. can somebody please proof read?
<<That lost was accompanied by an layoff restructuring of 1,300 employees>>
post #37 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

And the reason the BCE/CE distinction makes the same mistake, is that Tim Cook is a logistics genius, and what he gave to Apple was unheard of efficiency. But what Steve gave it was an insane obsession with quality, even to the point of making sure the unseen inside of products looked good. BCE/CE is an example of thinking efficiency (Tim) is what causes companies to rise and fall and quality (Steve) not so much. But if that were true, then why is Apple getting the results it's getting? Clearly quality does matter to people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Ok, if you believe that Tim and other Apple employees/execs are still inculcated with Steve's quality obsession, then surely we are still in the Steve Era? Because when people face a decision, they decide according to their values, and you are saying they still hold Steve's values. So even from that perspective the BCE/CE thing is still a division by non-fundamentals.

Cook clearly isn't the showman Jobs was but I've never gotten the impression that Cook had a far inferior desire for quality and precision. In fact, I would argue that Cook's drive for unheard of efficiency is part of the same psychology that was present in Jobs, and probably why Cook was the primary choice as CEO. As an owner of a Retina MBP and an iPhone 5S I see no evidence that attention to detail has waned.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #38 of 299
Originally Posted by Peterbob View Post
Sites like android central, Google os, literally pretends apple doesnt exist

 

Ever… been to any of those?

 
…and Apple blogs seem to have this weird hatred for Google, its weird.

 

YEAH. It’s not like Google pulled a Microsoft or anything.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #39 of 299
hmmmm, the problem here is that Google continues to grow and Apple is not. Yes Apple has a very nice business and is making more money than Google, but investors are looking at the future, not today, and the data suggests that Google is continuing to grow. It doesn't matter that the PC market is shrinking. The data suggests that the people are continuing to use PCs for doing Google searches and despite the decrease in sales, ad revenue from these PCs are still growing.
That brings up another point, which is that PC sales could go to zero and ad revenue could still increase because you don't need to sell a PC to use a PC. This is exactly why Apple needs to start lowering the price on iPhones and take more market share and charge for services on the devices.
post #40 of 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

It's just unfortunate that big investors have no faith in Apple or Tim Cook.  Apple shareholders will continue to lose out for whatever reasons.  Over the past year or so, Apple's percentage institutional investors hasn't budged.  It's still around 61% according to Google's financial data, down from 68% in early 2012.  Even long-term institutions think owning Apple is a waste of money.  I guess Apple's dividend isn't even large enough to make the institutional investors salivate.  I really just don't understand how Apple became so toxic to investors considering the fundamentals are still very good, no layoffs, openings of more retail stores, getting the iPhone on more carriers, etc.

 

Apple can do no right and Google can do no wrong.  Every single day, Google's share price climbs higher and higher and it doesn't even seem as if they're doing anything special except for acquiring robot-connected companies.  I guess Google shareholders and investors believe Google is going to corner the robotics industry in a few years, leap-frogging over all the other established robotics companies.  Absolutely nothing spooks Google investors.  Google's 3 Stooges, Schmidt, Page and Brin now have Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field working for them.  Tim Cook is doing nothing effective enough to pull in investors or to slow down Google's rapid growth.  Apple can't stop Android  from growing exponentially, either.

 

As an Apple shareholder, I've pretty much resigned myself that Google will eventually pass Apple in market cap and have a P/E of around 40 while Apple's P/E continues to compress around to where Exxon Mobil's P/E is at the mid 12s.  Apple's share price can't hold onto any sort of momentum.  It goes up a bit and then just collapses every quarter.  Considering Apple is sitting on so much reserve cash and has so many options to choose from it's really rather disheartening.  I know Apple isn't going out of business for a long time but it appears the share price has been capped below $600 and there's nothing much more to look forward to.

You are way over thinking it.  Google can do no wrong because they make all their money from advertising and those ad revenues are growing at 37%, despite the PC industry sinking.  In other words, even if PC sales go to zero, Google is still going to make money because the people that own PC are still using them and receiving ads.  Apple sells a commodity hardware that will eventually succumb to the pricing pressures and the inability to make significant improvements. At some point, your current iPhone will be good enough and you won't care to upgrade. We aren't there yet, but it isn't too far into the future. In other words, the writing is on the wall that Apple's revenue growth is going to slow and Apple will be a giant dividend producing machine.  Its not necessarily a bad thing, but its a different investment and warrants a lower multiple on the stock. 

....At least that's the theory.  Personally I think Apple has some growth still in it, which is why I own the stock.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google has fooled the media and markets, but hasn't bested Tim Cook's Apple