or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Goldman: Apple prepping redesigned iMacs, full-screen iPods
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Goldman: Apple prepping redesigned iMacs, full-screen iPods - Page 2

post #41 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

I would like to see the iMac hardware designers locked in the repair center and forced to repair all iMacs themselves.

Modern appliances, and let's face it Steve Jobs believes the computer should be one, are notoriously difficult to repair. We're in the era of replace half the machine because taking it apart to find the $1 part that failed is too difficult. Thus the iMac, being as close to appliance as a computer gets, is a PITA to fix, albeit nothing like the dreaded 12" PowerBook. There really isn't anything like getting paid for 40 minutes to do a repair that even the best technician in the world can't possibly accomplish in under 2 hours.

While I put no real faith in Apple releasing a consumer priced, expandable desktop in my lifetime, I must admit the phrase "product transition" improved my mood today.
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Anderson View Post

The iMac's non-adjustable height has incorporated one less thing to go wrong. The iMac's screen tilts, so there is some adjustment possible.

On a smooth surface, the entire thing also swivels well.
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

I would like to see the iMac hardware designers locked in the repair center and forced to repair all iMacs themselves.

Apple is by no means the only one to design products this way.

There is a reason for it.

Several decades ago, most everything was far less reliable than it is today. For younger people, that may seem hard to believe.

But, electronics often had a 25% chance of not working out of the box, and many things could, and would, go wrong shortly after setup.

It's been forgotten, but most warrantees were for 90 days.

Because of this, most products were designed to be easy to repair.

Back in the late '70's, I did a stint at a professional color lab in NYC. I was the technical manager. We had a large number of Kodak auto printers (auto by the standards of the day). These were very expensive machines. They still used tubes.

At the back was the drive mechanism, a very complex affair. On the spindles of the roll paper take-ups were clutches with felt pads. The pads had to be changed every few miles of paper, or so.

Problem was that you had to disassemble most of the drive system to get to the pads, almost an hours work to take apart, and put back together.

Why did they design it that way?

The first reason was because it was more efficient for the working of the machine. The clutches worked better when the pads were closer to the load (the heavy rolls of printing paper).

The second reason was because it was easier to manufacture that way.

The truth is that when most equipment is designed, esp. consumer equipment, it is designed first for ease of manufacture,

That keeps the cost down. Repair is often a secondary concern, particularly these days, when reliability is high, and people are complaining about cost, which is something we didn't see much of many years ago, when even cheap things were expensive by todays standards.

It could very well be that re-designing iMacs to be easier to repair as the first models were, could add a hundred or two to the final cost.

From a design and manufacturing front, in my experience of doing just that, I've found, and industry publications agree, that design and manufacture for ease of service rather than for ease of manufacture adds a burden of cost to the consumer that the consumer is rarely willing to assume.

If the iMacs cost an additional $200, people then would complain about the cost, without thinking about the ease of repair. Most of them would complain that they would prefer the cost to be lower, and damn the repair difficulties.

After all, repair is not their job. The people doing the work don't particularly care about how complex it may be, as long as it isn't dangerous. And considering that most iMacs (and other models) will never have to be repaired, it is an unfair burden for the rest of the customers to have to assume.

Sorry this post is so long for what seems to be a simple complaint, but, it really is a complex question.
post #44 of 71

OK, I am starting laughing even before saying it. I had a dream last night with S. Jobs introducing the new iMac in a show like MWSF. Unfortunately I don't remember the details, I can only recall that the new iMac was something like a strange base or stick on which you could attach the display.

I don't believe in... prophetic dreams, especially when you see them after a long period of overfatigue, but for those of you that you do, here it is.
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post


OK, I am starting laughing even before saying it. I had a dream last night with S. Jobs introducing the new iMac in a show like MWSF. Unfortunately I don't remember the details, I can only recall that the new iMac was something like a strange base or stick on which you could attach the display.

I don't believe in... prophetic dreams, especially when you see them after a long period of overfatigue, but for those of you that you do, here it is.

If it is true you better be wrong about timing. \
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

If it is true you better be wrong about timing. \

Do you mean MWSF (2008)? I referred to MWSF just to demonstrate it was a show like that or WWDC and not a special Apple event. Anyway, it matters not. And to come down to earth again, I don't believe too much this 7 August prediction.
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Do you mean MWSF (2008)? I referred to MWSF just to demonstrate it was a show like that or WWDC and not a special Apple event. Anyway, it matters not. And to come down to earth again, I don't believe too much this 7 August prediction.

I bet you are changing your mind now that this keyboard has appeared?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I bet you are changing your mind now that this keyboard has appeared?

Not yet. How Apple would introduce a completely new design for the iMac? Certainly not silently, like routine updates. It would require some kind of special event, no? Is there any special event scheduled for August 7?
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I bet you are changing your mind now that this keyboard has appeared?

What keyboard appeared, and where? It would help to provide a link, this is one I've found:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/27/i...imac-keyboard/
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

What keyboard appeared, and where? It would help to provide a link, this is one I've found:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/27/i...imac-keyboard/

That's exactly what he means, the keyboard under discussion in the other thread.
post #51 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

I bet you are changing your mind now that this keyboard has appeared?

Here's hoping if the keyboard is ready, the iMac is ready too. September is too far away.
post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Not yet. How Apple would introduce a completely new design for the iMac? Certainly not silently, like routine updates. It would require some kind of special event, no? Is there any special event scheduled for August 7?

August 7th is 11 days away.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMcLargehuge View Post

How much useful information is there in that opening sentence? NONE! They would have been just as informative had they said "Apple Inc. is gearing ip for several majopr product releases because they are a company and that's what companies do, most of the time, we think, I guess."



Is this Magic 8-Ballery of the highest order? "All signs point to yes!" No wonder "the analyst" didn't cite sources... most places frown if you say "In a recent question and answer session with my own ass..."



So that in 11 months they can revise their estimate to more closely match actual sales figures.



Nice that he identified the supply chain... is it manufactuing supply chain? Retail supply chain? Made it up as I went along supply chain?

Guess which one I think it is...



a .13 change? Yet he's baffled by the maxim "what goes up must come down"?



Yeah, buy high...



Commissions are hard to come by if no one sells or buys stock.

zzzzzzzzz

We get it. Analysts are stupid. Yet for some reason, AI keeps running their reports, and "clever" people keep commenting on them.
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

August 7th is 11 days away.

And what this tells about event schedule? Is there still time to organize something?
post #55 of 71
This keyboard hasn't appeared. Right now, we don't even know if it's real.

It might be, and it might not.

Let's not use as evidence, a series of photo's that may, or may not be, from Apple.
post #56 of 71
One thing that confuses people is why product refreshes invariably hurt revenues. First is that either you run out of your old product and lose sales while waiting for the new product to arrive at the stores, or you produce more of the old product than you need and lose margin because you have to sell the old product at fire-sale prices to get them out of your warehouse after your resellers return the old product under terms of their contract (which generally includes the right to exchange old product for new when you do a product transition). Second, there is the usual rollout expenses needed for a new product -- new marketing materials, new ads, paying for booze and nibbles for all the press shindigs, new review machines to send out to all the usual suspects, etc. Finally, in the case of Leopard, Apple is going to get a *lot* of machines back from retailers that have Tiger on them once Leopard is released, and is going to have to either heavily discount them in the closeouts area of the Apple Store website, or spend the money to refurb them (install Leopard, re-validate them, re-package them) and send them back to resellers.

Of course, you do have to refresh your product, or else your sales sag anyhow. So it's a necessary expense. It still has to be accounted for as a necessary expense tho, which is all that Apple is doing for the Leopard transition.
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple is by no means the only one to design products this way.

There is a reason for it.

Several decades ago, most everything was far less reliable than it is today. For younger people, that may seem hard to believe.

But, electronics often had a 25% chance of not working out of the box, and many things could, and would, go wrong shortly after setup.

It's been forgotten, but most warrantees were for 90 days.

Because of this, most products were designed to be easy to repair.

Back in the late '70's, I did a stint at a professional color lab in NYC. I was the technical manager. We had a large number of Kodak auto printers (auto by the standards of the day). These were very expensive machines. They still used tubes.

At the back was the drive mechanism, a very complex affair. On the spindles of the roll paper take-ups were clutches with felt pads. The pads had to be changed every few miles of paper, or so.

Problem was that you had to disassemble most of the drive system to get to the pads, almost an hours work to take apart, and put back together.

Why did they design it that way?

The first reason was because it was more efficient for the working of the machine. The clutches worked better when the pads were closer to the load (the heavy rolls of printing paper).

The second reason was because it was easier to manufacture that way.

The truth is that when most equipment is designed, esp. consumer equipment, it is designed first for ease of manufacture,

That keeps the cost down. Repair is often a secondary concern, particularly these days, when reliability is high, and people are complaining about cost, which is something we didn't see much of many years ago, when even cheap things were expensive by todays standards.

It could very well be that re-designing iMacs to be easier to repair as the first models were, could add a hundred or two to the final cost.

From a design and manufacturing front, in my experience of doing just that, I've found, and industry publications agree, that design and manufacture for ease of service rather than for ease of manufacture adds a burden of cost to the consumer that the consumer is rarely willing to assume.

If the iMacs cost an additional $200, people then would complain about the cost, without thinking about the ease of repair. Most of them would complain that they would prefer the cost to be lower, and damn the repair difficulties.

After all, repair is not their job. The people doing the work don't particularly care about how complex it may be, as long as it isn't dangerous. And considering that most iMacs (and other models) will never have to be repaired, it is an unfair burden for the rest of the customers to have to assume.

Sorry this post is so long for what seems to be a simple complaint, but, it really is a complex question.


That's funny, I thought clunky products in the old days were designed that way because the designers didn't know any better. For example, changing the pickup roller in an HP Laserjet 3 required removing several dozen screws, unplugging a bunch of cable connectors, and completely taking off the top housing of the printer. 10 years later, HP came up with the idea of designing the rollers for their newer Laserjets so users could just press on a tab, slide out the old roller, and snap a new one back on without having to disassemble the entire printer. Yet today's Laserjet printers are rated for much longer time between maintenance compared to those old Laserjet 3's.

Many of Apple's earlier Macs were far easier to take apart compared to PC's at the time. Typical PCs in the early to mid 90's required removing a dozen screws just to open the case. In contrast, Apple's beige G3's used snap on latches for their cases, hard drive brackets and even the logic boards. By making their earlier Macs so easy to take apart, was Apple admitting that their Macs were far less reliable than PC's at the time?

When questioned about the relatively higher prices of Macs compared to PC's, one of Apple's typical responses is "We charge what the market will bear". And we both know that there are people who will buy Macs regardless of what Apple charges. So for Apple to suddenly become sensitive about manufacturing costs and use that as a defense for poor hardware serviceability seems a bit hypocritical to me.
post #58 of 71
I wonder how much Apple make on the current Mac Mini? Those Core Duo chips can't be very expensive at all. 512MB RAM, Combo Drive and Intel GMA 950!! They must make a fortune on them... probably why they havent to update them and why Apple made so much money this quarter.
post #59 of 71
Kudos to the Piper Jafferies analyst who put a price target on a stock that actually is significantly higher than right now. All those analysts who have $150, $160 price targets, even $165, are really brave, oooh. The Piper analyst actually gets it. Mac sales (which are 60% of revenue are up 33% year over year. Show me another PC manufacturer who has sales growth in the 33% range.

Best of all Apple has a lot of potential market share to GAIN. The others are fighting each other for an ever dwindling market share, due to Apple's increasing market share. Let's see Dell increase their sales 33% yoy. It's not going to happen.

We hit 150 briefly this last week. And those analysts who put out those $150 price targets did so about 10 days ago. Apple's going up so fast they don't even call them 12 month price targets anymore they just say price target of $XXX dollars.

One thing for sure, Apple stock will be higher next year. It's been averaging about 100% gains each of the last 5 years. And with iPhone it can only get better.
post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by ;1118505

That's funny, I thought clunky products in the old days were designed that way because the designers didn't know any better. For example, changing the pickup roller in an HP Laserjet 3 required removing several dozen screws, unplugging a bunch of cable connectors, and completely taking off the top housing of the printer. 10 years later, HP came up with the idea of designing the rollers for their newer Laserjets so users could just press on a tab, slide out the old roller, and snap a new one back on without having to disassemble the entire printer. Yet today's Laserjet printers are rated for much longer time between maintenance compared to those old Laserjet 3's.

Many of Apple's earlier Macs were far easier to take apart compared to PC's at the time. Typical PCs in the early to mid 90's required removing a dozen screws just to open the case. In contrast, Apple's beige G3's used snap on latches for their cases, hard drive brackets and even the logic boards. By making their earlier Macs so easy to take apart, was Apple admitting that their Macs were far less reliable than PC's at the time?

When questioned about the relatively higher prices of Macs compared to PC's, one of Apple's typical responses is "We charge what the market will bear". And we both know that there are people who will buy Macs regardless of what Apple charges. So for Apple to suddenly become sensitive about manufacturing costs and use that as a defense for poor hardware serviceability seems a bit hypocritical to me.

My friend, that wasn't the old days. The old days were the days of tubes and transistors.

Once IC's came around, the new days were upon us.

What you are taking about is when a new mechanically complex technology comes out. Those are always a bother in the beginning. First they have to get the things to work. Then they have to sell enough of them. Once that happens, they have to make them cheaper. That means making them simpler. That means modularizing everything.

Even the first Hp's were pretty simple for their time. They used, as they still do, the all-in-one Canon cartridges. Everyone else had all of those parts separate.

Now, THAT was a real bother.

Apple's first Mac's could hardly be taken apart at all. PC's were always easy. I don't know why you think they were hard.

Mac's got easier with the II series, and then got harder again. Finally, with the 8600 and 9600, Apple wised up. But, it was still a pain, as you had to put the machine on its side in order to unfold the parts.

With the B/W series, Apple made a great move, except for the HD's which were at the bottom, it was the easiest machine to service of any I've worked on.

The G5 and now the Untel Mac Pro's are a bit of both.

As long as you don't have to get at the CPU's they are great. But, replacing those CPU's is a REAL pain.

But, again. Repair isn't our problem, so it doesn't matter.

Apple has made choices here which some don't agree with, but it has nothing to do with repair, it has to do with upgrading, which is very different.

Apple has likely looked at those who bought the first iMacs, and decided that not enough people cared about upgradability, but would like to see thinner models instead, so they complied.

Most companies work that way. Most iMacs are being sold into markets where upgradability isn't important. That doesn't mean that some people buying them agree, but the majority don't.

In the school market, one of the biggest areas that Applle sell them into, simply does not upgrade machines. I can tell you that from plenty of experience.

The business market that Apple sells them into, and they do have a following there as well, also does not upgrade.

Most home owners don't upgrade either.

That's just the way it is.

And, Apple seems to be avoiding the market that may have an interest in an relatively inexpensive upgradable machine. We all have our suspicions, but none of us have the answers.
post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


The truth is that when most equipment is designed, esp. consumer equipment, it is designed first for ease of manufacture,

You're dead-on correct.
Unfortunately, the biggest side effect is that products designed this way are destined for a quick trip to the landfill as the model becomes 'replace, don't repair.'
post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Whoa, whoa, whoa I think I'll need to get an overpaid analyst to check that before I believe it.

This game can't be this easy I think I'll give it a go. Ok I'm going to make an analysis, hold onto your hats:

In the coming months, Apple is expected to roll out new iMacs, new keyboards and new ipods.

BOOM, now someone pay me.

I'm getting sick of people talking trash about Wall Street Analysts. If you think its such an easy job, try doing it!!! In fact, follow these steps so you can make a couple million $$ per year as a Senior Research Analyst:

1. First go get about 5 years work experience at a top investment bank or a corporation or accounting firm.
2. Take the GMAT and get into a top 5 business school (Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Wharton, or Northwestern will do). And graduate at the top of your class.
3. Get a CFA and CPA within a couple years of graduation (google them if you dont know what they are).
4. Land a highly-coveted job at an investment bank working 100 hours per week for about 5 years doing research for some jerk who has no respect for you, all the while developing your personal network of industry leaders.
6. Either get promoted or jump ship and land a job as a senior research analyst leading a team of analysts that cover a the technology sector where Apple resides.

If you can do all of those things, congrats!!! You have earned the ability to sit on your butt all day, make obvious predictions, and rake in a couple million per year. You see, the point is that they have a plush job and a beautiful office, but you have to go through hell to get there. If you think you can earn it, go for it!

Remember: Don't hate the player... hate the game.
post #63 of 71
So what you're saying is that it takes a long time and a lot of money, focus, and effort to get to the point where you can make your living making obvious or obviously wrong statements?

And that's something we should stop hating on?

How would you feel about an MD sent to med school for twelve years and countless years of crappy clinic duties afterwards who then gets to sit back, relax, and pull diagnoses out of her ass?
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevenmrgan View Post

So what you're saying is that it takes a long time and a lot of money, focus, and effort to get to the point where you can make your living making obvious or obviously wrong statements?

And that's something we should stop hating on?

How would you feel about an MD sent to med school for twelve years and countless years of crappy clinic duties afterwards who then gets to sit back, relax, and pull diagnoses out of her ass?

I get your analogy... Those doctors wouldn't last a week in medicine. But the difference is that Medicine is a science. Its based on the physical world and facts. They carry a ton of malpractice insurance because people can sue for a wrong diagnosis. There's nothing scientific about equities. Even fundamental analysis is full of assumptions. And you cant sue an analyst for predicting a fall in AAPL during the month of June. Plenty of folks have tried to model the stock market, but the fact is that its irrational. You can read about this in a book called 'Random Walk on Wall Street'.

Analysts are paid because they sell their opinions primarily to mutual fund managers and to themselves (yes, the sales and trading departmetns of investment banks buy their own opinions at a transfer price). The ones who predict best are usually paid the most. The ones who are consistently incorrect get the boot and move down the heirarchy of i-banks.

Yes, a statement about how new imacs will increase AAPL share prices is obvious to you, but to a fund manager who is looking at about 25 different industries and potentially 200 different stocks at any given time, that is valuable information worth paying for. And they would rather buy it from a 'qualified' MBA/CFA/CPA analyst from Goldman or UBS than a couch potato mac geek (no offense if you are one of those, as Imay be one too!).
post #65 of 71
I understand your points perfectly well. You're saying that for better or for worse, analysts are making often uneducated guesses which they get paid for because they're not always off the mark.

I hope you can understand our frustration, however, with the idea of paying someone such sums for such lame advice. It's as if you paid your plumber $90,000 to tell you that your sink is probably clogged because you may be pouring non- water-soluble matter into it.

I'm not saying analysts should be jailed. I'm not saying I could be one. I'm saying it's an annoying profession which to use, people who often have more information and make better guesses, looks totally bananas.

And by the way, you can read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's new book, "The Black Swan" about why titles like "analyst" don't really mean anything reliable or imply any actual skill. It's closer to "psychic" than to "civil engineer" - it's not a very fact-based, performance-based, accurate field. It's more about BS than anything else.
post #66 of 71
Agreed on all points!!!

Funny - i'm a financial analyst. I wouldnt say I have any knowledge or skill that you need to call yourself an analyst. But bad ones are weeded out quickly.

I just read an abstract of that book. Looks fascinating, but it seems to be based on studies done by Eugene Fama and Merton Miller at the University of Chicago in the 60s and 70s. Stocks are a random walk, in that you can not base future prices on historical data. He throws in some entertaining anecdotes I'm sure, but theres no new science there. 'Dont get me wrong, i'd like to read it anyway.'

In studying portfolio theory, you learn that company performance doesn't really drive changes in share price. Its driven by PERCEPTIONS in company performance. Thats why CEOs are paid so well. thats also why there is not a perfect correlation between earnings performance and share price. And thats why Wall Street analysts have jobs. Their job is to mold perceptions, and they get paid alot to do so.
post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg_nyc View Post

Funny - i'm a financial analyst.

Prepare to be destroyed.

Ok, what nevenmrgan is exactly how most of us feel. It's all about how they reach meaningless statements in this context, irrespective of how much work they do to reach them. What's really more frustrating is why AI keeps putting them on the front page when there is far more interesting news going around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bg_nyc View Post

Thats why CEOs are paid so well. thats also why there is not a perfect correlation between earnings performance and share price. And thats why Wall Street analysts have jobs. Their job is to mold perceptions, and they get paid alot to do so.

Well my perception of them is that they are a bunch of lazy bastards so maybe they need to work harder. Seriously though, since you know the game, if you could describe what research you would do in reaching a conclusion like this and it turns out to be quite involved, I'm sure we'd all be more understanding towards analysts.
post #68 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg_nyc View Post

Agreed on all points!!!

Funny - i'm a financial analyst. I wouldnt say I have any knowledge or skill that you need to call yourself an analyst. But bad ones are weeded out quickly.

I just read an abstract of that book. Looks fascinating, but it seems to be based on studies done by Eugene Fama and Merton Miller at the University of Chicago in the 60s and 70s. Stocks are a random walk, in that you can not base future prices on historical data. He throws in some entertaining anecdotes I'm sure, but theres no new science there. 'Dont get me wrong, i'd like to read it anyway.'

In studying portfolio theory, you learn that company performance doesn't really drive changes in share price. Its driven by PERCEPTIONS in company performance. Thats why CEOs are paid so well. thats also why there is not a perfect correlation between earnings performance and share price. And thats why Wall Street analysts have jobs. Their job is to mold perceptions, and they get paid alot to do so.

Then is it really not an analyst job and some type of bizarre third party PR job? Do they knowingly inflate or deflate estimates to drive buyers to and from a stock? As I recall, some of the analysts ended up being off on iPhone sales by a factor of two to three. If their job was to to pump up a stock, then they did that, if they were trying to be accurate, some of them were wildly off.
post #69 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Then is it really not an analyst job and some type of bizarre third party PR job? Do they knowingly inflate or deflate estimates to drive buyers to and from a stock? As I recall, some of the analysts ended up being off on iPhone sales by a factor of two to three. If their job was to to pump up a stock, then they did that, if they were trying to be accurate, some of them were wildly off.

Jeff - Thats an interesting way to look at it. To say they are PR imlies that they add no value, they just disperse information for the benefit of their employer. So no, they would not be PR people. And to say that they knowingly inflate or deflate estimates implies that they actually know what the truth is beforehand, which they do not. Probably better to think of them as just another force in the market that has no more information than anyone who closely follows AAPL, but have leverage...

Their counterparts in industries like energy and retail do some serious work. To use energy as an example, research analysts spend hours and hours pouring over 10Q statements, analyzing factors like bbl production, oil prices across the world (there are a couple dozen quotes on various oil types), and refinery shutdowns to mention a few. Its a job that the average Joe simply cant do. But you dont need to pour over financial statements to give a recommendation for AAPL. Its driven by new products and sales data, information that is attainable just by reading press releases. This IS something the average Joe can do pretty easily. So we probably give these slobs who cover AAPL alot more leverage than they should have.

And keep in mind that Analysts have little to lose when making a ridiculous prediction. If they turn out to be right, way to go! They get a cash bonus and news coverage. If they are wrong, they are just another one of the hundreds who will say 'AAPL is too volatile and difficult to predict. We now revise our recommendation to...'

But given all those things, it presents a great opportunity for those who closely follow AAPL. If the analysts says something that is full of crap, it will probably move the market for AAPL shares regardless of its accuracy b/c of uneducated and/or timid shareholders. If we can recognize that, we can make a ton of $$! An example is just recently when someone announced production cuts. What kind of sense did that make?? AAPL dropped $7 per share and i picked up a handful b/c I knew the statement had to be false. Jobs would never recommend production cuts of the iPhone. It would be like admitting defeat, and just 3 weeks ago there was almost a shortage of iPhones to go around.

Sorry for the long post.
post #70 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Prepare to be destroyed.

Ok, what nevenmrgan is exactly how most of us feel. It's all about how they reach meaningless statements in this context, irrespective of how much work they do to reach them. What's really more frustrating is why AI keeps putting them on the front page when there is far more interesting news going around.



Well my perception of them is that they are a bunch of lazy bastards so maybe they need to work harder. Seriously though, since you know the game, if you could describe what research you would do in reaching a conclusion like this and it turns out to be quite involved, I'm sure we'd all be more understanding towards analysts.

My friend, its the nature of the beast with AAPL, and its all because of investors! Yes, investors are to blame I say! We create a demand for sensational statements! We crave big announcements on AAPL. We visit AI in the morning hoping to hear than announcement about the new iMacs or the widescreen iPods. We lust for AAPL info! Am i right? Evidence of this is 1) prices are ridiculously volatile, and 2) trading volumes are at the top of the list for NYSE and NASDAQ combined on those days when any peice of info is released, whether it comes form AAPL or not and 3) You visited AI and MacRumors how many times this week?

I-bank managers see this, and you can bet they go to their tech sector analyst and say to him or her, 'Any piece of crap information you have, or think you have, put it out there! We need to sell some news and get coverage!' And the analyst does it. And the vicious cycle commences. More news. More excitement. More trading. More news. More excitement. More trading. So on and so forth.
post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by age234 View Post

Does it really make sense to release all this right at the end of the education season? All the students who were going the Mac + iPod route will have done so by the timeframe these guys are saying (I'm one of them)

Apple always does this. They use the educational season to clear out old stock and then release upgrades shortly thereafter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Goldman: Apple prepping redesigned iMacs, full-screen iPods