I agree that Apple has people who can keep it on track. Whether there is anybody with the vision and moxie (let alone exceeding that) of SJ is another matter.
Let's face it - the man is one of a kind.
Charisma... there isn't anyone who can touch SJ in this department.
... "The main risk to Apple is that Android, by creating an equally compelling experience, ...
So far, Google has taken a page from Microsoft's playbook (RIM pun intended) and stopped improving Android's features when they are "good enough." Far from "compelling." And if you include the App Store in the iPhone "experience" (and how could you not?) Android will always fall far short of Apple's experience. The Android Market is a cesspool of cheesy ripoffs, free malware, porn, and ad-supported spamware.
But don't take my word for it. Peter Vesterbacka of Rovio, the developer of Angry Birds, says that Android is "Open but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesn’t work on Android." Just Google (oh the irony) "Vesterbacka Rovio interview" and you'll find many articles with that quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
... Reiner speculated that Apple has been motivated by a desire to slow Android, though he admitted Verizon's inspiration is "less clear." ...
Verizon's motivation is to maintain their subscriber lead over AT&T. Since AT&T began selling iPhone, they have gradually gained market share and now nearly equal Verizon. Despite AT&T having the worst service among all major U.S. cell carriers.
Verizon has no interest in anything other than maximizing their voice and data plan revenue. That means increasing the number of subscribers and getting them to buy expensive voice and data plans. They will do whatever it takes, including throwing Android down the same staircase that they threw RIM down.
That's right. At one time RIM's BlackBerry was the darling of data plan revenue for Verizon. But not any more. How far the mighty have fallen. The same thing can and will happen to Android on Verizon. There will be no more safe haven for Android once Verizon starts selling iPhone.
Android market share on Verizon will drop to roughly that of Android market share on AT&T. Far below iPhone. Verizon will have a new flagship smart phone, and they won't hesitate to promote it over all others.
I think most of us agree that it's now only a question as to when the Verizon iPhone happens. Apple honestly can't afford to wait. They learned very fast from waiting on this current iphone exclusive which is why they are for once moving their asses on getting the iPad to market faster.
All this talk about the announcement will be at a "Apple" event is lame I think. Theyve gone off many other exclusives with no fanfare whatsoever. It's not like Apples dumping Att. Steve Jobs giving his direct blessing to Verizon would no doubt cannibalize the hell out Att iPhone sales especially how every single news outlet constantly repeats that Consumer Reports rated them (Att) as worst. This whole deal etc is a lot more methodical than most comprehend. It's got ramifications all over the place and the Consumer Reports pifce did not help.
It's perfectly fine for Verizon to announce it's on sale at CES. Apple will have a announcement this month but it's for iPad 2 not for a Verizon iPhone. The only way I could see Apple getting involved directly would be if Verizon itself gets an Apple exclusive of some kind, like a very special model. A white iPhone finally? A LTE ready? Why can't Jobs be with Verizon at CES??
I also highly highly doubt Verizon waits till June or July. Att itself would totally want the Verizon on sale to stop a flood of difections that would happen in shine or July when a huge pot of iphoners contracts at Att are up. Sure Verizon would love that. Let's face it a boatload are gonna switch no matter what day or month the on sale is.. Bottom line market pressures are calling the shots here. That is demonstrated by how fast Apple got the iPad out there. Six months is an eternity in technology. I'd be shitshocked if Verizon waits.
What an absolute bunch of wankers these Wall Street analysts must be? They apparently 'respect' the companies that caused the GFC or profit from selling the tools of death and destruction in other countries, yet not 'respect' one of the few US company that has consistently demonstrated excellence in both innovative product development and global market penetration over the last 10 years.
I wonder if they will 'respect' the manufacturers of Android phones once the inevitable Android malware starts spreading like wild fires? Just as is happening with MS Windows, Android will only succeed in tying itself and its users in an impenetrable mess that will be easy pickings for Steve Jobs and his team at Apple. But then again, Wall Street never learns from history.
Ironically, the observation is not about analysts, it's an observation by an analyst about investors.
Investing is making a bet on future growth prospects. That's why Microsoft can rake in several billion dollars a quarter but their stock has been flat for the last 10 years - not much belief that Microsoft can expand once computing moves beyond the desktop.
The iPhone can't continue to grow stuck to AT&T, or at least that is what Wall Street is betting. Once Apple moves to other carriers in the US, the growth potential of the iPhone will be greatly increased, Android's growth will probably be stunted, and Apple's "respect" on Wall Street will go up. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's about earnings growth and the anticipation of future earnings growth. MSFT has been fairly flat over the last decade because their rate of earnings growth isn't increasing. Investors will tend to bid down the multiples of stocks of companies that don't have the prospect of accelerating earnings. Part of the AAPL story today is the question of whether the company can continue to grow at its recent historical rate going forward. The conventional wisdom is that this becomes more and more difficult the larger the company becomes, and it morphs from a growth to a value stock.
Marketshare is meaningless, as long as Apple continues to sell more iPhones each quarter than they did the quarter before (with some allowance for seasonal variations), then they are still growing, now matter how many cheap Android based phones are sold in China and India.
Case in point, worldwide Nokia still retains number one market share, Symbian is still the number one smartphone OS, yet as a company they are drifting further into irrelevance.
I, on the other hand, have no respect for Wall Street.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Analysts are so funny; not a single one knows anything. They exist for the purpose of satire, right? No other reason, right? Because I've not taken a single one seriously for three years.
Funny thing, that. They likely feel the same way about you.
AT&T pays Apple more per iPhone since they are the exclusive carrier. Yes, apple could sell more units on multiple carriers, but for the past few years they (Apple) felt the higher payments from AT&T were a better deal than higher volumes (at lower prices) across multiple carriers. Now that their time with AT&T is likely coming to an end, Apple may seek another "exclusive" deal which will thus get a carrier to pay more. The deal mentioned in this article (having Verizon be the exclusive carrier of a 4G iPhone) certainly makes sense. We'll see how things pan out.
The reasons had a lot to do with technology... AT&T is the only carrier in the US using the same GSM frequencies as roughly 75% of the rest of the world.
I?d add that the current excessive demand has held back iPhone sales more. This however, will likely not be an issue as the new factory is slated to come online shortly. Hopefully they have the needed components to meet this year?s demand.
Well no prizes for guessing you flunked Economics 101. Demand never holds back sales, it supports them; a lack of adequate supply will hold back sales.
As for only using one telco, in Europe the iPhone is sold by multiple providers now. There are no more exclusive deals here, and as a result market share and profits have gone up.
Is wall street a leading or lagging indicator of the economy?
Is Wall street rigged against the small "investor/player"?
I realize it is not rational. So why "invest" in a system that is not rational. That, to me, is irrational.
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
it is a lagging indicator. a few lead, and a lot follow. you can ride the gravy train, or be the last dude standing with no chair.
it is totally rigged against the small time "day trader". someone who invests long term is quite insulated against pro traders as long as you do your homework.
it isn't rational because it is run by emotion... but that's why you can make a lot of money as well. The reason why you should invest is because you can make more money over a long term than by stuffing your money in your mattress. Just holding onto one currency implies just as much risk as the stock market.
Last thing we Apple Folks need is ANYTHING from Wall Street
Bunch of short-sighted/short-selling greedy bastards
With zero sense of The Future of The Global Village
Need evidence - look at past few years
Hell, look at the past 40 (and Enron, S&L, etc etc)
Is all artificial - just so many scribbles on paper - just "vaporware"
.
Now Apple and OSX and iPad and iPod and iPhone ?
THOSE are real, and all the money in the world won't create them
Just ask Bill Gates
.
BC
Don't usually flame, and could've picked other posts here, but you get the "honor" of being told that your "logic" is a fat load o' crap from start to finish. Without risk capital (made possible by the "evil" accumulation of wealth in "fiscal instruments" like stocks and bonds maintained by brokers), virtually none of the technology you depend on and laud would ever have existed. Including Apple, Inc. And including Gates' admittedly entirely-self-serving investment of $150 million into a reeling Apple.
The development of markets - funded by those with belief in long-term visions is as big a factor in bringing humanity out of the dark ages as any of the inventions they made it possible to develop and spread.
Fabs costs billions, for one example, and markets are the only places sums like those can be raised. And most of the recent innovations coming out of "garage" operations that we take for granted came about only under the wings of venture capital angels or larger firms willing to take a chance on some engineer's or other geek's dream.
The second biggest market cap got so far no respect on the market? Apple, do you think you need that market anyways?
OK, let me put it like this. Do you think you need a model for the US market only, while you're desperately failing to launch some white UMTS phone, which targets far more markets at once?
Comments
I agree that Apple has people who can keep it on track. Whether there is anybody with the vision and moxie (let alone exceeding that) of SJ is another matter.
Let's face it - the man is one of a kind.
Charisma... there isn't anyone who can touch SJ in this department.
... "The main risk to Apple is that Android, by creating an equally compelling experience, ...
So far, Google has taken a page from Microsoft's playbook (RIM pun intended) and stopped improving Android's features when they are "good enough." Far from "compelling." And if you include the App Store in the iPhone "experience" (and how could you not?) Android will always fall far short of Apple's experience. The Android Market is a cesspool of cheesy ripoffs, free malware, porn, and ad-supported spamware.
But don't take my word for it. Peter Vesterbacka of Rovio, the developer of Angry Birds, says that Android is "Open but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesn’t work on Android." Just Google (oh the irony) "Vesterbacka Rovio interview" and you'll find many articles with that quote.
... Reiner speculated that Apple has been motivated by a desire to slow Android, though he admitted Verizon's inspiration is "less clear." ...
Verizon's motivation is to maintain their subscriber lead over AT&T. Since AT&T began selling iPhone, they have gradually gained market share and now nearly equal Verizon. Despite AT&T having the worst service among all major U.S. cell carriers.
Verizon has no interest in anything other than maximizing their voice and data plan revenue. That means increasing the number of subscribers and getting them to buy expensive voice and data plans. They will do whatever it takes, including throwing Android down the same staircase that they threw RIM down.
That's right. At one time RIM's BlackBerry was the darling of data plan revenue for Verizon. But not any more. How far the mighty have fallen. The same thing can and will happen to Android on Verizon. There will be no more safe haven for Android once Verizon starts selling iPhone.
Android market share on Verizon will drop to roughly that of Android market share on AT&T. Far below iPhone. Verizon will have a new flagship smart phone, and they won't hesitate to promote it over all others.
All this talk about the announcement will be at a "Apple" event is lame I think. Theyve gone off many other exclusives with no fanfare whatsoever. It's not like Apples dumping Att. Steve Jobs giving his direct blessing to Verizon would no doubt cannibalize the hell out Att iPhone sales especially how every single news outlet constantly repeats that Consumer Reports rated them (Att) as worst. This whole deal etc is a lot more methodical than most comprehend. It's got ramifications all over the place and the Consumer Reports pifce did not help.
It's perfectly fine for Verizon to announce it's on sale at CES. Apple will have a announcement this month but it's for iPad 2 not for a Verizon iPhone. The only way I could see Apple getting involved directly would be if Verizon itself gets an Apple exclusive of some kind, like a very special model. A white iPhone finally? A LTE ready? Why can't Jobs be with Verizon at CES??
I also highly highly doubt Verizon waits till June or July. Att itself would totally want the Verizon on sale to stop a flood of difections that would happen in shine or July when a huge pot of iphoners contracts at Att are up. Sure Verizon would love that. Let's face it a boatload are gonna switch no matter what day or month the on sale is.. Bottom line market pressures are calling the shots here. That is demonstrated by how fast Apple got the iPad out there. Six months is an eternity in technology. I'd be shitshocked if Verizon waits.
What an absolute bunch of wankers these Wall Street analysts must be? They apparently 'respect' the companies that caused the GFC or profit from selling the tools of death and destruction in other countries, yet not 'respect' one of the few US company that has consistently demonstrated excellence in both innovative product development and global market penetration over the last 10 years.
I wonder if they will 'respect' the manufacturers of Android phones once the inevitable Android malware starts spreading like wild fires? Just as is happening with MS Windows, Android will only succeed in tying itself and its users in an impenetrable mess that will be easy pickings for Steve Jobs and his team at Apple. But then again, Wall Street never learns from history.
Ironically, the observation is not about analysts, it's an observation by an analyst about investors.
Investing is making a bet on future growth prospects. That's why Microsoft can rake in several billion dollars a quarter but their stock has been flat for the last 10 years - not much belief that Microsoft can expand once computing moves beyond the desktop.
The iPhone can't continue to grow stuck to AT&T, or at least that is what Wall Street is betting. Once Apple moves to other carriers in the US, the growth potential of the iPhone will be greatly increased, Android's growth will probably be stunted, and Apple's "respect" on Wall Street will go up. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's about earnings growth and the anticipation of future earnings growth. MSFT has been fairly flat over the last decade because their rate of earnings growth isn't increasing. Investors will tend to bid down the multiples of stocks of companies that don't have the prospect of accelerating earnings. Part of the AAPL story today is the question of whether the company can continue to grow at its recent historical rate going forward. The conventional wisdom is that this becomes more and more difficult the larger the company becomes, and it morphs from a growth to a value stock.
Case in point, worldwide Nokia still retains number one market share, Symbian is still the number one smartphone OS, yet as a company they are drifting further into irrelevance.
I, on the other hand, have no respect for Wall Street.
Analysts are so funny; not a single one knows anything. They exist for the purpose of satire, right? No other reason, right? Because I've not taken a single one seriously for three years.
Funny thing, that. They likely feel the same way about you.
AT&T pays Apple more per iPhone since they are the exclusive carrier. Yes, apple could sell more units on multiple carriers, but for the past few years they (Apple) felt the higher payments from AT&T were a better deal than higher volumes (at lower prices) across multiple carriers. Now that their time with AT&T is likely coming to an end, Apple may seek another "exclusive" deal which will thus get a carrier to pay more. The deal mentioned in this article (having Verizon be the exclusive carrier of a 4G iPhone) certainly makes sense. We'll see how things pan out.
The reasons had a lot to do with technology... AT&T is the only carrier in the US using the same GSM frequencies as roughly 75% of the rest of the world.
I?d add that the current excessive demand has held back iPhone sales more. This however, will likely not be an issue as the new factory is slated to come online shortly. Hopefully they have the needed components to meet this year?s demand.
Well no prizes for guessing you flunked Economics 101. Demand never holds back sales, it supports them; a lack of adequate supply will hold back sales.
As for only using one telco, in Europe the iPhone is sold by multiple providers now. There are no more exclusive deals here, and as a result market share and profits have gone up.
Funny thing, that. They likely feel the same way about you.
Exactly. If they don't give a crap about their readers, there's no reason for us to care about them.
I'm wondering how Wall Street doesn't "respect" Apple with a $300+ share price and a $300+ billion market cap.
Keep repeating this, and eventually it will sound like a meaningful statement. That does seem to be the theory around here anyway.
thanks for an educated post. there are too many "that guy is stupid" posts from people who don't know what they're talking about.
You're right, its not just that guy that's stupid... its the whole Wall St cluster@#$%
I have a completely innocent question:
Is wall street a leading or lagging indicator of the economy?
Is Wall street rigged against the small "investor/player"?
I realize it is not rational. So why "invest" in a system that is not rational. That, to me, is irrational.
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
it is a lagging indicator. a few lead, and a lot follow. you can ride the gravy train, or be the last dude standing with no chair.
it is totally rigged against the small time "day trader". someone who invests long term is quite insulated against pro traders as long as you do your homework.
it isn't rational because it is run by emotion... but that's why you can make a lot of money as well. The reason why you should invest is because you can make more money over a long term than by stuffing your money in your mattress. Just holding onto one currency implies just as much risk as the stock market.
maybe he knows basic technicals.. but so what? so does everyone else.
I'm sorry.. but dr.millmoss obviously read too much motley fool sites and stuff.
maybe he knows basic technicals.. but so what? so does everyone else.
You should be sorry. You haven't responded to a single thing I've written. Sniping is just plain cowardly.
Last thing we Apple Folks need is ANYTHING from Wall Street
Bunch of short-sighted/short-selling greedy bastards
With zero sense of The Future of The Global Village
Need evidence - look at past few years
Hell, look at the past 40 (and Enron, S&L, etc etc)
Is all artificial - just so many scribbles on paper - just "vaporware"
.
Now Apple and OSX and iPad and iPod and iPhone ?
THOSE are real, and all the money in the world won't create them
Just ask Bill Gates
.
BC
Please
Last thing we Apple Folks need is ANYTHING from Wall Street
Bunch of short-sighted/short-selling greedy bastards
With zero sense of The Future of The Global Village
Need evidence - look at past few years
Hell, look at the past 40 (and Enron, S&L, etc etc)
Is all artificial - just so many scribbles on paper - just "vaporware"
.
Now Apple and OSX and iPad and iPod and iPhone ?
THOSE are real, and all the money in the world won't create them
Just ask Bill Gates
.
BC
Don't usually flame, and could've picked other posts here, but you get the "honor" of being told that your "logic" is a fat load o' crap from start to finish. Without risk capital (made possible by the "evil" accumulation of wealth in "fiscal instruments" like stocks and bonds maintained by brokers), virtually none of the technology you depend on and laud would ever have existed. Including Apple, Inc. And including Gates' admittedly entirely-self-serving investment of $150 million into a reeling Apple.
The development of markets - funded by those with belief in long-term visions is as big a factor in bringing humanity out of the dark ages as any of the inventions they made it possible to develop and spread.
Fabs costs billions, for one example, and markets are the only places sums like those can be raised. And most of the recent innovations coming out of "garage" operations that we take for granted came about only under the wings of venture capital angels or larger firms willing to take a chance on some engineer's or other geek's dream.
Global village, my fat patootie.
OK, let me put it like this. Do you think you need a model for the US market only, while you're desperately failing to launch some white UMTS phone, which targets far more markets at once?