I would love to see Apple remain a serious force in mobile computing, but IPods are going to disappear soon (it just doesn't make sense to have a separate device that doesn't do anything that any smartphone can do), Macs are a tiny niche market, Iphones are losing market share rapidly to Android, and there are finally going to be competitors to IPad. If Apple doesn't open their OS to other companies then IOS will whither away, that's just a fact.
There are plenty of parents who get iPods for the their children instead of an iPhone. And, many adults may be perfectly fine with an Ipod Touch and not an iPhone.
As for IOS whithering away, I'm sure there will always be enough people willing to go for quality. Even if an Android phone was the same price I'd stick with Apple - all my devices are very nicely integrated. I also have the various apps that I've purchased, that wouldn't work on Android.
There are plenty of parents who get iPods for the their children instead of an iPhone. And, many adults may be perfectly fine with an Ipod Touch and not an iPhone.
As for IOS whithering away, I'm sure there will always be enough people willing to go for quality. Even if an Android phone was the same price I'd stick with Apple - all my devices are very nicely integrated. I also have the various apps that I've purchased, that wouldn't work on Android.
When I dropped my iPhone 4 and smashed the screen while trying to change albums when walking the dog yesterday, I found myself wishing I'd stuck to owning a music player separate to my phone!
Without knowing your age, family structure, income, other savings, investments, assets (like a home), debts, investment goals, risk tolerance and more - there's no way anyone can responsibly give you an exact answer to that question.
Your financial life is a 3-legged stool: Fiscal assets (stocks and bonds, either held individually or in mutual funds/ETF's), Real assets (homes, land, gold, collections) and Monetary assets (cash, savings, CD's) and wise investors know they need a balance between the three that works for them.
I've pursued a "get rich slowly" strategy of widely diversified mutual funds since 1985 and have done quite well, thank you. I started with investing $50/month in a single, broad-based fund. I've never owned a single stock as I feel they're too volatile for the average individual who doesn't follow the markets closely, and dig into every document a company issues. And even if you want to go that route, a rule of thumb is to never put more than a few % of your investments into one egg in your basket.
AAPL may be the rare exception to the rule - and with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight wish I'd followed my impulse when it was at $17/share. The broad-based horizontally AND vertically integrated "ecosystem" we keep talking about here that they've built is unprecedented in the industry. And their buzz and branding is second to none in the world today. But I do own a number of funds who own fair amounts of AAPL, so I'm in.
Still, what goes up, does come down. The digital and internet revolutions are STILL in their infancy, and the next totally unexpected "insanely great" leap forward could come from anywhere.
The current AAPL team will retire someday, and the "law of reversion to the mean" will exact a toll someday, as the past and current owners of MySpace found out when a pimply Harvard student started facebook. There WILL be a next great product that doesn't come from Apple, and eventually, Apple will make a wrong bet. Doesn't mean they'll implode or never get back to leadership, but there WILL be twists and turns over an investor's lifetime.
Agree about CNN, but I'm not much of a fan of the Motley Fool - there's some sound info there - but they're out to sell their own offerings, they hype hot ideas (even while preaching that they don't) and much of their advice is way above the level that neophytes can handle out of context.
Vanguard has a number of excellent, free guides for new investors based on time-tested principles. Plus they charge the lowest fees of any mutual fund company and their brokerage fees for stocks are fair as well. Fees are the MOST underrated factor in most people's portfolios - over time 1-2%/year can make a huge difference. Fidelity Investments has a lot of useful educational tools as well. And both offer a broad array of products suited for all kinds of investors.
Notice the technical terms introduced in this reply. Do you really understand all of them? And there's thousands more.
I have nothing against "financial planners" per se - but they're mostly unregulated, and in many states anybody can claim to be one. Further, most work for companies who have particular "financial products" to sell, i.e., their own in-house funds, annuities and more. And nearly every company who uses this model offers a stable of mediocre to poor offerings - but the "planner" makes far more (on commissions) if you buy those, so the planner has a bias to lead you making decisions that are in the planner's interest - not yours! Total conflict of interest.
If you use a financial planner - which is advisable for people who don't want to spend years learning to manage their portfolios - here are two screaming rules: 1. Use a CERTIFIED Financial Planner (CFP), and 2. ONLY use FEE-BASED planners, and never COMMISSION-BASED ones, i.e., what they make is either a straight-up, out-front fee no matter what they advise you to buy - or if they're going to manage your portfolio over time, that what they make is based on how well they do for you
Again, respectfully, this person doesn't know you or your situation - so while he could be right, taking a "tout" like this is a shot in the dark. Even if it's Apple.
Not quite on the rest of my topic (except that you own AAPL), but mostly right on the money about the company.
Except I think that Apple's finally aiming for the Enterprise too - people want to use their favorite tools all the time, and not lug a satchel around for job and home - and they're bringing their Pads, Phones and Pods with them to work every day. IT is feeling the pressure to embrace what their users want, and this time Apple's likely to do quite well in the business computing world - by being on the bleeding edge of mobile tech, not trying to catch up in commodity markets like rack servers.
Good post. I wasn't going to write that much. A new study found that financial advisors and planners, on average, did worse than the market as a whole. I would agree with that. They tend to be very conservative. Too conservative as far as I'm concerned.
Late last year, when Apple was just above $300, a friend asked me if he should invest some money in Apple. He's got enough money so that another $75,000 isn't going to make or break anything. My answer was to take that and invest it in Apple. He had a meeting with his advisor later that week. He's got a managed account, which always gives me the shivers. His advisor told him that he would do that, but he wanted to wait until the stock dropped back to the low 290's. Well, we know what happened. He never did buy it.
Financial advisers are more worried about losing money for you than making it..
It's going to be interesting to see what that something is. I suspect you're probably right and a dividend of some sort would make sense. Let's face it, even if they blew $20bn on a purchase, that's only really three quarters worth of cash, then they're back with the same question.
I'm totally out of ideas as to what they would be buying. When they had half as much, it was easier, because their options were much more limited. But now, considering that they seem to be continuing to hold to it, their universe of options is continually getting larger. To me, that means more dangerous.
I'm totally out of ideas as to what they would be buying. When they had half as much, it was easier, because their options were much more limited. But now, considering that they seem to be continuing to hold to it, their universe of options is continually getting larger. To me, that means more dangerous.
They?ve also added two major legs and a hobby that could become a leg of their business. On top of that, they are using so many of the same resources over a vast number of product categories. While this is smart it can also be dangerous. Using too many ?species? are competing for the same resources. Apple might have to create invest in manufacturing resources closer to the raw materials if they are going to continually grow like this or it?ll have to create some new beaks for its finches*. I think we?ve seen glimpses of it with the Retina Display, Apple A4 processor, partial ownership of Imagination. Does Apple own any of the new Foxconn plant?
They?ve also added two major legs and a hobby that could become a leg of their business. On top of that, they are using so many of the same resources over a vast number of product categories. While this is smart it can also be dangerous. Using too many ?species? are competing for the same resources. Apple might have to create invest in manufacturing resources closer to the raw materials if they are going to continually grow like this or it?ll have to create some new beaks for its finches*. I think we?ve seen glimpses of it with the Retina Display, Apple A4 processor, partial ownership of Imagination. Does Apple own any of the new Foxconn plant?
* Too obscure?
Too obscure? For me, yes!
The thing is, no matter what legs they add, how much cash could they need for it? At the rate they're going they will be adding $10bn per quarter. That would surely fund moves into pretty much any business they would like.
Let's say for argument that they did decide to make an Apple television. Unless they decided to make the panels for it themselves (and much though I'd like to see them manufacture their own stuff, it seems unlikely) I honestly can't see how it would cost them $10bn per quarter to set themselves up in that space.
By end of 2012 (if the world hasn't collapsed), they'll have sold more than 100 million iPads and counting...
I just see no competition. The iPhone was tied to a carrier at launch so the competitors were given the chance to catch up.
The iPod was mainly about music and videos. Apple's advance was not enough especially now that smartphones play music too.
The Mac was revolutionary but Windows knew more how to take advantage of it than Apple, relegating the Mac to a niche product."
With the iPad, none of the above applies. It has enough apps to lead as a closed platform. It's not carrier dependent. It's a better product.
And even more important. Apple has its own distribution network. Plus, the iPad is more affordable than other tablets... Again no competition.
Actually, years ago most computers were business oriented. As distributed computers, towers, became more affordable people for homes went with what they were familiar with at work. So the business user, also a comsumer chose PC for home use. Economies of scale were in place, and MS was living high.
With mobility and smart phones, a user shift started. It jumped when Apple introduced iPHONE the smart computer. Also, computers in the form of laptops became as powerful as towers just a few years old. So who wanted the stay at home tower computer. As more and more demand for mobility grew, the idea of the true mobile computer ... (to be hand held with a decent size screen came into focus.) Who captured the trend, and created an easy to use computer. Apple with iPAD. MS still doesn't seem to know how to stop the transition.
Actually, Apple chose GSM (proprietary for US) but open to 40 plus world wide carriers.
It is so interesting that Apple really did know what they were doing.
The theme of "being open standards leads to better..." is interesting hype. In truth Apple has a distinct advantage ... it makes its own hardware, develops outstanding software to optimize the performance of their hardware ... and as standard for interconnection and interaction via worldwide networks for better communications and sharing exploded, so Apple improved its distribution and sales ability. I won't continue, but I am sure you might be seeing the business side of Apple is exploding, and has now passed Microsoft in profitability. The the momentum continues, with iPAD and now iPAD2. How many people are waiting in line for Xoom, Galaxy, and maybe Playbook?
I'm totally out of ideas as to what they would be buying. When they had half as much, it was easier, because their options were much more limited. But now, considering that they seem to be continuing to hold to it, their universe of options is continually getting larger. To me, that means more dangerous.
Two ends of the spectrum: Arm Holdings and Cisco offer interesting possibilities.
Two ends of the spectrum: Arm Holdings and Cisco offer interesting possibilities.
... or they could buy Dell for cash/spite and...
ARM could be an interesting one, but at the same time, it's the sort of purchase that as soon as they bought it, it would be worth far less than they paid for it. Much of ARM's value is the fact that they sell to everyone. I would have thought if Apple bought them they would use their technology just for themselves, hence a lot of the value would be gone.
Cisco seems a bit too dull for Apple!
I like the idea of buying Dell out of spite. They'll be able to do the same to Microsoft in a couple of years at the rate they are adding cash!
Along with the superior everything, the long headstart, the price advantage - add mindshare.
I was on a plane today, using my iPad 1, and the matronly woman across the aisle put down her paperback (you know, those analog reading devices people used to use), and asked me if that was the new iPad. "Why yes it is", I lied, and proceeded to give her a tour. She told me she is planning on getting one.
I'm pretty sure that if I had been using a Xoom she still would have asked how I liked my iPad. Just like mp3 players are universally known as iPods.
Insurmountable is a terrible term. Over what time frame? Its true, the iPod wiped the competition, but Android is indeed selling some phones. My guess is lots of folks will buy Android tablets, not because they are better, but because every retailer will have them. Kinda the same story about Macs and PC's back in the day. My sister still purchases a new PC about every 2 years, cause her old one craps out with viruses or poor quality. She is indeed PC ignorant. An iPad would be perfect for her.
They’ve also added two major legs and a hobby that could become a leg of their business. On top of that, they are using so many of the same resources over a vast number of product categories. While this is smart it can also be dangerous. Using too many “species” are competing for the same resources. Apple might have to create invest in manufacturing resources closer to the raw materials if they are going to continually grow like this or it’ll have to create some new beaks for its finches*. I think we’ve seen glimpses of it with the Retina Display, Apple A4 processor, partial ownership of Imagination. Does Apple own any of the new Foxconn plant?
* Too obscure?
Nah, a Darwin reference is always welcome.
If Apple can use suppliers who can guarantee supplies, then they've got little risk there, unless an earthquake in the wrong area then damages their supplies. But that can happen no matter what.
Apple gives loans to manufacturers by investing in plant and machinery. That loan is paid back upon parts delivery to Apple. It's a risk to Apple if they don't need the quantity they've specified, but that doesn't seem to be a problem.
So while they don't own the plant or machinery, they are invested in some of it for a while. We don't know which companies are getting this investment.
ARM could be an interesting one, but at the same time, it's the sort of purchase that as soon as they bought it, it would be worth far less than they paid for it. Much of ARM's value is the fact that they sell to everyone. I would have thought if Apple bought them they would use their technology just for themselves, hence a lot of the value would be gone.
Cisco seems a bit too dull for Apple!
I like the idea of buying Dell out of spite. They'll be able to do the same to Microsoft in a couple of years at the rate they are adding cash!
I suspect the purchase of ARM by Apple would pretty much kill the nascent ARM tablet competition for the iPad. As to smart phones -- where are the gonna go?
I mentioned Cisco, considering that the may want to use it as an entré into the enterprise & server farm market.
Shortly after Apple went public, Jobs joked that Apple would buy IBM -- still a bit expensive.
However, if Apple can find someone established * in the server business, Smooth-Stone offers some interesting possibilities -- from server farms, enterprise, SMB and home:
Two ends of the spectrum: Arm Holdings and Cisco offer interesting possibilities.
... or they could buy Dell for cash/spite and...
I've seen the ARm argument a number of times, but I don't think it could happen these days.
When Apple and Acorn started ARM, it was just for themselves. Once Apple stopped making the Newton, they lost interest in the company, and over some years, sold off their stock. If they purchased the company now, that would present a problem for all the other OEM's out there. Could they trust that Apple would continue offering their designs fairly, or would they keep some secrets for themselves? That would destroy the value of the purchase, and Apple would have to write it off. I don't think they would want to do that.
As of today, ARM is worth $11.6 billion, say a purchase would go for $16. With the huge run-up last year and this, if they wanted it, they would have been better off buying it a year ago.
Cisco is having problems now, and I don't think that Apple is interested in manufacturing the large routers that help run the Internet, or continue sales of the cheap ones for home use. Basically, the company is out of Apple's area of expertise.
Insurmountable is a terrible term. Over what time frame? Its true, the iPod wiped the competition, but Android is indeed selling some phones. My guess is lots of folks will buy Android tablets, not because they are better, but because every retailer will have them. Kinda the same story about Macs and PC's back in the day. My sister still purchases a new PC about every 2 years, cause her old one craps out with viruses or poor quality. She is indeed PC ignorant. An iPad would be perfect for her.
First, I agree that insurmountable is a terrible term -- ever date a (_______ you supply the religion) * girl?
* Sorry, Lucy!
Second, I don't know if the Android tabs will get the shelf space at retailers (other than the carriers). I don't believe that they will carry a low enough price advantage -- they certainly won't show as well.
Good post. I wasn't going to write that much. A new study found that financial advisors and planners, on average, did worse than the market as a whole. I would agree with that. They tend to be very conservative. Too conservative as far as I'm concerned.
Late last year, when Apple was just above $300, a friend asked me if he should invest some money in Apple. He's got enough money so that another $75,000 isn't going to make or break anything. My answer was to take that and invest it in Apple. He had a meeting with his advisor later that week. He's got a managed account, which always gives me the shivers. His advisor told him that he would do that, but he wanted to wait until the stock dropped back to the low 290's. Well, we know what happened. He never did buy it.
Financial advisers are more worried about losing money for you than making it..
Steering people away from inappropriate financial advice is a personal mission - so many wolves looking for sheep to fleece - so I do go on.
However, I agree with you about financial advisors - even the best and most principled often have the bias you mentioned. Still, set and forget types who want to try to beat plain vanilla index funds can get fairly decent management - not from top tier people, but well-trained ones - at Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard to name three discounters - who will hew to any risk curve you specify for about 1%/year. (As you note, though, they might often - or most often - not beat the indexes in the long run!)
And once you have a sizable portfolio, you can also get one time "portfolio reviews" for a reasonable fee. I got a free one once my account went over a certain threshold at one of the above, and it was highly detailed (about 50 pages!) and kind of useful.
I'm also very leery of "retail brokers" in general - and avoiding both those and put-up-a-shingle "planners and advisors" is why I always push newbies to Vanguard - not necessarily the best for an educated investor in every case or every investment, but because of its ethical practices, lowest-in-the-industry fees and where the people who buy Vanguard products are also buying Vanguard itself - since it's only big player where the funds own the fund company instead of the other way round, so the profits are passed back to the funds, and therefore to the shareholders.
Among the real scum out there, many unregulated "financial advisors" heavily push variable annuities (often on their friends and neighbors) with some single selling point like "guaranteed principal" (the same way Wintel (and now Google and friends) have long sold a headline spec or two!) while hiding high commissions, high fees, insurance components and 10 year lock-ins (kind of like a two year cell contract on a mediocre Android). And push them generally to people who don't even have IRA's or 401K's when V.A.'s are really only suitable for those who've maxxed out other "tax-advantaged" investments in the first place. Because a single no-transaction-fee Target Date fund will be just as safe and much less expensive for the truly unsophisticated over the long haul.
People who want to deal with a personal stock broker on the other hand should look up "burn and churn" before they let "their guy" decide when to buy and sell at any institution where the broker gets a commission for each trade. The worst of these guys will buy and sell you into oblivion with continuous frequent trading.
And even at some of the big houses, the "advice" can be atrocious (or nearly criminal). A friend of mine was widowed and was left with a large IRA account full of individual stocks she didn't understand at all. UBS sold her a variable annuity to "simplify" her life - with all the above defects - PLUS the fact it was a "tax-advantaged vehicle" INSIDE of an IRA - which is already tax-deferred!! And most of it, believe it or not - since she went in to go conservative and was near 60 - was in an aggressive growth fund!
That's a triple bogey...
And so with that, Mr. Mod, I allow the thread to get back on topic. Please 'scuse the soapboxy diversion.
I personally believe that GarageBand is the killer app. Thats sometimes over-used as a phrase so here is a good definition from wikipedia.
in the jargon of technologists, has been used to refer to any computer program that is so necessary or desirable that it proves the core value of some larger technology, such as computer hardware, gaming console, software, or an operating system. A killer app can substantially increase sales of the platform on which it runs.
I dont think that Android can compete.
1) They dont have the rich SDK.
2) They dont have the hardware integration.
3) They dont have the design ability to create these kinds of apps for Android. Nobody has, for iOS either, except Apple. Luckily Apple have done so.
I don't think it is a killer app. In years I upgrade my iLife on my Macs and I don't even open GarageBand. However, the app is a GIGANTIC milestone. 1) Apple is going all "postPC" portable, simple, touchy... 2) the app shows developers and consumers that "postPC" touchy feely devices can be used to create content and that apps can be tremendously capable and feature rich
This insurmountable lead is a result of a product that stands alone. Apple also has the headwater of media content of music, books, games and applications that grows larger every day. After a few minutes of use, any competing product seems nothing more than some paltry lackluster imitation of little use or value.
Comments
I would love to see Apple remain a serious force in mobile computing, but IPods are going to disappear soon (it just doesn't make sense to have a separate device that doesn't do anything that any smartphone can do), Macs are a tiny niche market, Iphones are losing market share rapidly to Android, and there are finally going to be competitors to IPad. If Apple doesn't open their OS to other companies then IOS will whither away, that's just a fact.
There are plenty of parents who get iPods for the their children instead of an iPhone. And, many adults may be perfectly fine with an Ipod Touch and not an iPhone.
As for IOS whithering away, I'm sure there will always be enough people willing to go for quality. Even if an Android phone was the same price I'd stick with Apple - all my devices are very nicely integrated. I also have the various apps that I've purchased, that wouldn't work on Android.
There are plenty of parents who get iPods for the their children instead of an iPhone. And, many adults may be perfectly fine with an Ipod Touch and not an iPhone.
As for IOS whithering away, I'm sure there will always be enough people willing to go for quality. Even if an Android phone was the same price I'd stick with Apple - all my devices are very nicely integrated. I also have the various apps that I've purchased, that wouldn't work on Android.
When I dropped my iPhone 4 and smashed the screen while trying to change albums when walking the dog yesterday, I found myself wishing I'd stuck to owning a music player separate to my phone!
Without knowing your age, family structure, income, other savings, investments, assets (like a home), debts, investment goals, risk tolerance and more - there's no way anyone can responsibly give you an exact answer to that question.
Your financial life is a 3-legged stool: Fiscal assets (stocks and bonds, either held individually or in mutual funds/ETF's), Real assets (homes, land, gold, collections) and Monetary assets (cash, savings, CD's) and wise investors know they need a balance between the three that works for them.
I've pursued a "get rich slowly" strategy of widely diversified mutual funds since 1985 and have done quite well, thank you. I started with investing $50/month in a single, broad-based fund. I've never owned a single stock as I feel they're too volatile for the average individual who doesn't follow the markets closely, and dig into every document a company issues. And even if you want to go that route, a rule of thumb is to never put more than a few % of your investments into one egg in your basket.
AAPL may be the rare exception to the rule - and with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight wish I'd followed my impulse when it was at $17/share. The broad-based horizontally AND vertically integrated "ecosystem" we keep talking about here that they've built is unprecedented in the industry. And their buzz and branding is second to none in the world today. But I do own a number of funds who own fair amounts of AAPL, so I'm in.
Still, what goes up, does come down. The digital and internet revolutions are STILL in their infancy, and the next totally unexpected "insanely great" leap forward could come from anywhere.
The current AAPL team will retire someday, and the "law of reversion to the mean" will exact a toll someday, as the past and current owners of MySpace found out when a pimply Harvard student started facebook. There WILL be a next great product that doesn't come from Apple, and eventually, Apple will make a wrong bet. Doesn't mean they'll implode or never get back to leadership, but there WILL be twists and turns over an investor's lifetime.
Agree about CNN, but I'm not much of a fan of the Motley Fool - there's some sound info there - but they're out to sell their own offerings, they hype hot ideas (even while preaching that they don't) and much of their advice is way above the level that neophytes can handle out of context.
Vanguard has a number of excellent, free guides for new investors based on time-tested principles. Plus they charge the lowest fees of any mutual fund company and their brokerage fees for stocks are fair as well. Fees are the MOST underrated factor in most people's portfolios - over time 1-2%/year can make a huge difference. Fidelity Investments has a lot of useful educational tools as well. And both offer a broad array of products suited for all kinds of investors.
Notice the technical terms introduced in this reply. Do you really understand all of them? And there's thousands more.
I have nothing against "financial planners" per se - but they're mostly unregulated, and in many states anybody can claim to be one. Further, most work for companies who have particular "financial products" to sell, i.e., their own in-house funds, annuities and more. And nearly every company who uses this model offers a stable of mediocre to poor offerings - but the "planner" makes far more (on commissions) if you buy those, so the planner has a bias to lead you making decisions that are in the planner's interest - not yours! Total conflict of interest.
If you use a financial planner - which is advisable for people who don't want to spend years learning to manage their portfolios - here are two screaming rules: 1. Use a CERTIFIED Financial Planner (CFP), and 2. ONLY use FEE-BASED planners, and never COMMISSION-BASED ones, i.e., what they make is either a straight-up, out-front fee no matter what they advise you to buy - or if they're going to manage your portfolio over time, that what they make is based on how well they do for you
Again, respectfully, this person doesn't know you or your situation - so while he could be right, taking a "tout" like this is a shot in the dark. Even if it's Apple.
Not quite on the rest of my topic (except that you own AAPL), but mostly right on the money about the company.
Except I think that Apple's finally aiming for the Enterprise too - people want to use their favorite tools all the time, and not lug a satchel around for job and home - and they're bringing their Pads, Phones and Pods with them to work every day. IT is feeling the pressure to embrace what their users want, and this time Apple's likely to do quite well in the business computing world - by being on the bleeding edge of mobile tech, not trying to catch up in commodity markets like rack servers.
Good post. I wasn't going to write that much. A new study found that financial advisors and planners, on average, did worse than the market as a whole. I would agree with that. They tend to be very conservative. Too conservative as far as I'm concerned.
Late last year, when Apple was just above $300, a friend asked me if he should invest some money in Apple. He's got enough money so that another $75,000 isn't going to make or break anything. My answer was to take that and invest it in Apple. He had a meeting with his advisor later that week. He's got a managed account, which always gives me the shivers. His advisor told him that he would do that, but he wanted to wait until the stock dropped back to the low 290's. Well, we know what happened. He never did buy it.
Financial advisers are more worried about losing money for you than making it..
Very well put.
It's going to be interesting to see what that something is. I suspect you're probably right and a dividend of some sort would make sense. Let's face it, even if they blew $20bn on a purchase, that's only really three quarters worth of cash, then they're back with the same question.
I'm totally out of ideas as to what they would be buying. When they had half as much, it was easier, because their options were much more limited. But now, considering that they seem to be continuing to hold to it, their universe of options is continually getting larger. To me, that means more dangerous.
I'm totally out of ideas as to what they would be buying. When they had half as much, it was easier, because their options were much more limited. But now, considering that they seem to be continuing to hold to it, their universe of options is continually getting larger. To me, that means more dangerous.
They?ve also added two major legs and a hobby that could become a leg of their business. On top of that, they are using so many of the same resources over a vast number of product categories. While this is smart it can also be dangerous. Using too many ?species? are competing for the same resources. Apple might have to create invest in manufacturing resources closer to the raw materials if they are going to continually grow like this or it?ll have to create some new beaks for its finches*. I think we?ve seen glimpses of it with the Retina Display, Apple A4 processor, partial ownership of Imagination. Does Apple own any of the new Foxconn plant?
* Too obscure?
They?ve also added two major legs and a hobby that could become a leg of their business. On top of that, they are using so many of the same resources over a vast number of product categories. While this is smart it can also be dangerous. Using too many ?species? are competing for the same resources. Apple might have to create invest in manufacturing resources closer to the raw materials if they are going to continually grow like this or it?ll have to create some new beaks for its finches*. I think we?ve seen glimpses of it with the Retina Display, Apple A4 processor, partial ownership of Imagination. Does Apple own any of the new Foxconn plant?
* Too obscure?
Too obscure? For me, yes!
The thing is, no matter what legs they add, how much cash could they need for it? At the rate they're going they will be adding $10bn per quarter. That would surely fund moves into pretty much any business they would like.
Let's say for argument that they did decide to make an Apple television. Unless they decided to make the panels for it themselves (and much though I'd like to see them manufacture their own stuff, it seems unlikely) I honestly can't see how it would cost them $10bn per quarter to set themselves up in that space.
By end of 2012 (if the world hasn't collapsed), they'll have sold more than 100 million iPads and counting...
I just see no competition. The iPhone was tied to a carrier at launch so the competitors were given the chance to catch up.
The iPod was mainly about music and videos. Apple's advance was not enough especially now that smartphones play music too.
The Mac was revolutionary but Windows knew more how to take advantage of it than Apple, relegating the Mac to a niche product."
With the iPad, none of the above applies. It has enough apps to lead as a closed platform. It's not carrier dependent. It's a better product.
And even more important. Apple has its own distribution network. Plus, the iPad is more affordable than other tablets... Again no competition.
Actually, years ago most computers were business oriented. As distributed computers, towers, became more affordable people for homes went with what they were familiar with at work. So the business user, also a comsumer chose PC for home use. Economies of scale were in place, and MS was living high.
With mobility and smart phones, a user shift started. It jumped when Apple introduced iPHONE the smart computer. Also, computers in the form of laptops became as powerful as towers just a few years old. So who wanted the stay at home tower computer. As more and more demand for mobility grew, the idea of the true mobile computer ... (to be hand held with a decent size screen came into focus.) Who captured the trend, and created an easy to use computer. Apple with iPAD. MS still doesn't seem to know how to stop the transition.
Actually, Apple chose GSM (proprietary for US) but open to 40 plus world wide carriers.
It is so interesting that Apple really did know what they were doing.
The theme of "being open standards leads to better..." is interesting hype. In truth Apple has a distinct advantage ... it makes its own hardware, develops outstanding software to optimize the performance of their hardware ... and as standard for interconnection and interaction via worldwide networks for better communications and sharing exploded, so Apple improved its distribution and sales ability. I won't continue, but I am sure you might be seeing the business side of Apple is exploding, and has now passed Microsoft in profitability. The the momentum continues, with iPAD and now iPAD2. How many people are waiting in line for Xoom, Galaxy, and maybe Playbook?
I'm totally out of ideas as to what they would be buying. When they had half as much, it was easier, because their options were much more limited. But now, considering that they seem to be continuing to hold to it, their universe of options is continually getting larger. To me, that means more dangerous.
Two ends of the spectrum: Arm Holdings and Cisco offer interesting possibilities.
... or they could buy Dell for cash/spite and...
Two ends of the spectrum: Arm Holdings and Cisco offer interesting possibilities.
... or they could buy Dell for cash/spite and...
ARM could be an interesting one, but at the same time, it's the sort of purchase that as soon as they bought it, it would be worth far less than they paid for it. Much of ARM's value is the fact that they sell to everyone. I would have thought if Apple bought them they would use their technology just for themselves, hence a lot of the value would be gone.
Cisco seems a bit too dull for Apple!
I like the idea of buying Dell out of spite. They'll be able to do the same to Microsoft in a couple of years at the rate they are adding cash!
I was on a plane today, using my iPad 1, and the matronly woman across the aisle put down her paperback (you know, those analog reading devices people used to use), and asked me if that was the new iPad. "Why yes it is", I lied, and proceeded to give her a tour. She told me she is planning on getting one.
I'm pretty sure that if I had been using a Xoom she still would have asked how I liked my iPad. Just like mp3 players are universally known as iPods.
They’ve also added two major legs and a hobby that could become a leg of their business. On top of that, they are using so many of the same resources over a vast number of product categories. While this is smart it can also be dangerous. Using too many “species” are competing for the same resources. Apple might have to create invest in manufacturing resources closer to the raw materials if they are going to continually grow like this or it’ll have to create some new beaks for its finches*. I think we’ve seen glimpses of it with the Retina Display, Apple A4 processor, partial ownership of Imagination. Does Apple own any of the new Foxconn plant?
* Too obscure?
Nah, a Darwin reference is always welcome.
If Apple can use suppliers who can guarantee supplies, then they've got little risk there, unless an earthquake in the wrong area then damages their supplies. But that can happen no matter what.
Apple gives loans to manufacturers by investing in plant and machinery. That loan is paid back upon parts delivery to Apple. It's a risk to Apple if they don't need the quantity they've specified, but that doesn't seem to be a problem.
So while they don't own the plant or machinery, they are invested in some of it for a while. We don't know which companies are getting this investment.
ARM could be an interesting one, but at the same time, it's the sort of purchase that as soon as they bought it, it would be worth far less than they paid for it. Much of ARM's value is the fact that they sell to everyone. I would have thought if Apple bought them they would use their technology just for themselves, hence a lot of the value would be gone.
Cisco seems a bit too dull for Apple!
I like the idea of buying Dell out of spite. They'll be able to do the same to Microsoft in a couple of years at the rate they are adding cash!
I suspect the purchase of ARM by Apple would pretty much kill the nascent ARM tablet competition for the iPad. As to smart phones -- where are the gonna go?
I mentioned Cisco, considering that the may want to use it as an entré into the enterprise & server farm market.
Shortly after Apple went public, Jobs joked that Apple would buy IBM -- still a bit expensive.
However, if Apple can find someone established * in the server business, Smooth-Stone offers some interesting possibilities -- from server farms, enterprise, SMB and home:
Ready for ARM-based server chips? Smooth-Stone hopes so
* Mmmm... that puts Dell back in the picture
.
Two ends of the spectrum: Arm Holdings and Cisco offer interesting possibilities.
... or they could buy Dell for cash/spite and...
I've seen the ARm argument a number of times, but I don't think it could happen these days.
When Apple and Acorn started ARM, it was just for themselves. Once Apple stopped making the Newton, they lost interest in the company, and over some years, sold off their stock. If they purchased the company now, that would present a problem for all the other OEM's out there. Could they trust that Apple would continue offering their designs fairly, or would they keep some secrets for themselves? That would destroy the value of the purchase, and Apple would have to write it off. I don't think they would want to do that.
As of today, ARM is worth $11.6 billion, say a purchase would go for $16. With the huge run-up last year and this, if they wanted it, they would have been better off buying it a year ago.
Cisco is having problems now, and I don't think that Apple is interested in manufacturing the large routers that help run the Internet, or continue sales of the cheap ones for home use. Basically, the company is out of Apple's area of expertise.
Insurmountable is a terrible term. Over what time frame? Its true, the iPod wiped the competition, but Android is indeed selling some phones. My guess is lots of folks will buy Android tablets, not because they are better, but because every retailer will have them. Kinda the same story about Macs and PC's back in the day. My sister still purchases a new PC about every 2 years, cause her old one craps out with viruses or poor quality. She is indeed PC ignorant. An iPad would be perfect for her.
First, I agree that insurmountable is a terrible term -- ever date a (_______ you supply the religion) * girl?
* Sorry, Lucy!
Second, I don't know if the Android tabs will get the shelf space at retailers (other than the carriers). I don't believe that they will carry a low enough price advantage -- they certainly won't show as well.
Good post. I wasn't going to write that much. A new study found that financial advisors and planners, on average, did worse than the market as a whole. I would agree with that. They tend to be very conservative. Too conservative as far as I'm concerned.
Late last year, when Apple was just above $300, a friend asked me if he should invest some money in Apple. He's got enough money so that another $75,000 isn't going to make or break anything. My answer was to take that and invest it in Apple. He had a meeting with his advisor later that week. He's got a managed account, which always gives me the shivers. His advisor told him that he would do that, but he wanted to wait until the stock dropped back to the low 290's. Well, we know what happened. He never did buy it.
Financial advisers are more worried about losing money for you than making it..
Steering people away from inappropriate financial advice is a personal mission - so many wolves looking for sheep to fleece - so I do go on.
However, I agree with you about financial advisors - even the best and most principled often have the bias you mentioned. Still, set and forget types who want to try to beat plain vanilla index funds can get fairly decent management - not from top tier people, but well-trained ones - at Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard to name three discounters - who will hew to any risk curve you specify for about 1%/year. (As you note, though, they might often - or most often - not beat the indexes in the long run!)
And once you have a sizable portfolio, you can also get one time "portfolio reviews" for a reasonable fee. I got a free one once my account went over a certain threshold at one of the above, and it was highly detailed (about 50 pages!) and kind of useful.
I'm also very leery of "retail brokers" in general - and avoiding both those and put-up-a-shingle "planners and advisors" is why I always push newbies to Vanguard - not necessarily the best for an educated investor in every case or every investment, but because of its ethical practices, lowest-in-the-industry fees and where the people who buy Vanguard products are also buying Vanguard itself - since it's only big player where the funds own the fund company instead of the other way round, so the profits are passed back to the funds, and therefore to the shareholders.
Among the real scum out there, many unregulated "financial advisors" heavily push variable annuities (often on their friends and neighbors) with some single selling point like "guaranteed principal" (the same way Wintel (and now Google and friends) have long sold a headline spec or two!) while hiding high commissions, high fees, insurance components and 10 year lock-ins (kind of like a two year cell contract on a mediocre Android). And push them generally to people who don't even have IRA's or 401K's when V.A.'s are really only suitable for those who've maxxed out other "tax-advantaged" investments in the first place. Because a single no-transaction-fee Target Date fund will be just as safe and much less expensive for the truly unsophisticated over the long haul.
People who want to deal with a personal stock broker on the other hand should look up "burn and churn" before they let "their guy" decide when to buy and sell at any institution where the broker gets a commission for each trade. The worst of these guys will buy and sell you into oblivion with continuous frequent trading.
And even at some of the big houses, the "advice" can be atrocious (or nearly criminal). A friend of mine was widowed and was left with a large IRA account full of individual stocks she didn't understand at all. UBS sold her a variable annuity to "simplify" her life - with all the above defects - PLUS the fact it was a "tax-advantaged vehicle" INSIDE of an IRA - which is already tax-deferred!! And most of it, believe it or not - since she went in to go conservative and was near 60 - was in an aggressive growth fund!
That's a triple bogey...
And so with that, Mr. Mod, I allow the thread to get back on topic. Please 'scuse the soapboxy diversion.
I personally believe that GarageBand is the killer app. Thats sometimes over-used as a phrase so here is a good definition from wikipedia.
in the jargon of technologists, has been used to refer to any computer program that is so necessary or desirable that it proves the core value of some larger technology, such as computer hardware, gaming console, software, or an operating system. A killer app can substantially increase sales of the platform on which it runs.
I dont think that Android can compete.
1) They dont have the rich SDK.
2) They dont have the hardware integration.
3) They dont have the design ability to create these kinds of apps for Android. Nobody has, for iOS either, except Apple. Luckily Apple have done so.
I don't think it is a killer app. In years I upgrade my iLife on my Macs and I don't even open GarageBand. However, the app is a GIGANTIC milestone. 1) Apple is going all "postPC" portable, simple, touchy... 2) the app shows developers and consumers that "postPC" touchy feely devices can be used to create content and that apps can be tremendously capable and feature rich
Anyone doing so is comparing an operating system to a smart phone which is NOT a valid comparison.
Ex: GPS units have a larger market share than BMW. Makes sense? I don't think so.
By end of 2012 (if the world hasn't collapsed), they'll have sold more than 100 million iPads and counting...
I just see no competition. The iPhone was tied to a carrier at launch so the competitors were given the chance to catch up.
The iPod was mainly about music and videos. Apple's advance was not enough especially now that smartphones play music too.
The Mac was revolutionary but Windows knew more how to take advantage of it than Apple, relegating the Mac to a niche product.
With the iPad, none of the above applies. It has enough apps to lead as a closed platform. It's not carrier dependent. It's a better product.
And even more important. Apple has its own distribution network. Plus, the iPad is more affordable than other tablets... Again no competition.
Man, you talk about the iPod as its a failure. Why? Don't you know that 7 out 10 PMP owners has an iPod? 70% marketshare if you didn't konw.