Tm Cook's approach to the release did seem to be a bit lack-luster (
The 'problem' is that Tim has no interest, it seems, in being the rock god personality that Steve became. And given the issues Apple has had with Steve's fame it is a wise decision
A friend of mine once said the Steve was like Richard Gere's character in Chicago. Both could roll out a turd and by force of their personality get you to buy ten and love them. And to a point, I have to agree.
[on edit: trailing the Naz by less than 1% does not a negative reaction make... neutral... sure... but not negative]
Actually it could. It really depends on whether, in relation to the movement of other stocks in the market, AAPL's move was statistically significantly different from 'zero' or not.
Sure. Lots of them. Just read these forums for examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
Thus, doom for Apple? The response to Android depends on other far-reaching operating systems competing at all ranges of the market. If no such response arrives (e.g. competitors like Microsoft fail) Android will continue to grow in market share. That does not mean much for Apple, though. Android has to convince current iPhone users, en masse, to migrate to Android for the material impact to take place, and that's not happening (nor do I expect it will unless Apple sits on its laurels and Android and its marketplace starts to receive some really great polish).
Marketshare is not the statistic to look for in determining the success of every platform. It may be vital if, like Google, what you really want is eyeballs and clicks, or if, like some PC manufacturers, you're operating on extremely slender margins, but for Apple what they need is their slice of the high end market.
Market share is not all that important. Apple was making lots of money on the iPhone even when they were less than 1% of phones sold. Similarly, Apple making a ton of money on their computers - even though their market share is relatively small.
Apple has chosen to go after the profitable niches in both computers and phones. They are not the least bit interested in the "how cheaply can I buy a product" segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
For Apple to compete on marketshare as Android does it will have to license its operating system to other hardware manufacturers. If they had done that, Android would never have grown as it did. If they did that, they would start to eat heavily into Android's marketshare. But in doing this, they would also have to sacrifice so much of what makes the iPhone such an exceptional device, and they'd probably also be making a terrible business decision.
That is, of course, nonsense. First, Apple doesn't compete on market share. They're happy to take as much share as they can get, but not at the expense of profit. Second, even without licensing, the #1 and #2 phones in the country are iPhones. iOS currently has the highest share of any portable OS.
Market share is not the goal. Profits are - and Apple is doing extremely well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple is still under-performing the market since the iPhone4S announcement.
HP, Dell, Microsoft, Amazon and most other high profile tech stocks on the NASDAQ have done better (as a percentage) than Apple today, as did the overall NASDAQ average. I don't think they've convinced investors quite yet, but they'll come around, probably sooner rather than later.
I see. So you're also one of those who can't evaluate a product for yourself but has to make the erroneous assumption that short term market share swings are critical?
As you know, lots of rumors drive the stock before and after a big announcement, so swings on the day of an announcement are relatively meaningless. To determine if a company is on the right track, you have to look at a longer trend. For example, Apple's stock is about 10% higher than it was 6 months ago. NASDAQ, for comparison, is about 10% lower than 6 months ago.
So how do you conclude that Apple is on the wrong track?
Actually it could. It really depends on whether, in relation to the movement of other stocks in the market, AAPL's move was statistically significantly different from 'zero' or not.
It's all relative.
Sorry, I think you might have typed that wrong.
Are you saying that if there was a significant difference (ie. 3% difference even if AAPL was positive) or are you saying that it doesn't matter if it's even less than 1%?
[I'm basing this on a historical perspective of AAPL, which, to me, is open the most under rewarded stocks in the market.... so it tends to play a little differently anyway]
[on edit: This all started because I said that investors were showing a positive sentiment for AAPL by bringing it into positive territory... at that time there was ~ - .4% difference.]
Anyone who says this sort of shit really hasn't thought about it.
I'll match the number of times that I've apologized to someone for being wrong with anyone on this board.
Maybe I just don't think you're right... especially when you start talking about RIMM reacting to AAPL's announcement when it was just reacting with every other stock, including AAPL, to a market upswing. It doesn't give me much confidence in your knowledge.
That is what people don't understand. So many argue about this being "the best" or that being "the best", but other than some freakazoids on internet forums, vanishingly small numbers of consumers care about the very best.
Tell me who sells more cars - Ferrari or Honda? Yeah, now tell me who sells more phones, the spec whores or Apple?
Apple knows that they do NOT have to be the best. They just need to be good enough. And the profits will roll in.
Simple as that.
No, that's comparison is flawed, because Apple is also at the top tier.
Apple itself is like Ferrari and others. Cutting edge, great overall package. Everyone loves it
Android phones are like standard but uber tuned cars. They do everything possible to get those 100 extra hp, even if at the end the car itself isn't as good as it could be.
Market share is not all that important. Apple was making lots of money on the iPhone even when they were less than 1% of phones sold. Similarly, Apple making a ton of money on their computers - even though their market share is relatively small.
Apple has chosen to go after the profitable niches in both computers and phones. They are not the least bit interested in the "how cheaply can I buy a product" segment.
We don't disagree. Why do you think we do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That is, of course, nonsense. First, Apple doesn't compete on market share. They're happy to take as much share as they can get, but not at the expense of profit. Second, even without licensing, the #1 and #2 phones in the country are iPhones. iOS currently has the highest share of any portable OS.
Market share is not the goal. Profits are - and Apple is doing extremely well.
First, how is that nonsense? Especially the statement you bolded?
Are you reading something into discussion which wasn't written? Once again, we don't disagree. I was giving an example of what Apple would have to do to compete with Android in terms of marketshare, but in that same paragraph I pointed out why I thought it would be a bad idea, and that it would strip the iPhone of many qualities which make it such a wonderful device. And in that same post I went on to explain why market share is not an important statistic for measuring the success of the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I see. So you're also one of those who can't evaluate a product for yourself but has to make the erroneous assumption that short term market share swings are critical? [...] So how do you conclude that Apple is on the wrong track?
And while this wasn't addressed to me, I think it represents some of the problem above. All they did was make a simple factual observation about two days in the market. They did not say that it was meaningful in the long term, nor did they explain that Apple is on the wrong track. In fact, they even expressed to the contrary that the market will come around.
Have you been responding to too many trolls or something?
I have a 3GS so do several of my friends/peers 45-50 years old, professional, financially independent, predominately male. The iPhone 4 was a great entry point for those in this demographic who were still using blackberries and had not made the switch with 3GS. For those few still using blackberries There are some who are going to migrate to iPhone 4s and some waiting for iPhone 5.
For me personally I am not going to migrate off of 3GS until iPhone 5 and I do not know of any current iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 user moving to iPhone 4S. All are waiting for iPhone 5.
It is the unit forecasts for iPhone 4s that have inflated expectations. The stock will suffer as these unit forecasts are reduced to more accurate figures.
HP, Dell, Microsoft, Amazon and most other high profile tech stocks on the NASDAQ have done better (as a percentage) than Apple today, as did the overall NASDAQ average. I don't think they've convinced investors quite yet, but they'll come around, probably sooner rather than later.
Your response:
I see. So you're also one of those who can't evaluate a product for yourself but has to make the erroneous assumption that short term market share swings are critical?
As you know, lots of rumors drive the stock before and after a big announcement, so swings on the day of an announcement are relatively meaningless. To determine if a company is on the right track, you have to look at a longer trend. For example, Apple's stock is about 10% higher than it was 6 months ago. NASDAQ, for comparison, is about 10% lower than 6 months ago.
So how do you conclude that Apple is on the wrong track?
Did you actually read what I wrote before quoting and responding?
i wasn't here for the first release of OSX, was it like this?
How are all those working out?
Check out the 2001 video of Jobs introducing the iPod. It looks like the same venue at their campus and the audience seemed less impressed than the iPhone 4 event yesterday.
It is the unit forecasts for iPhone 4s that have inflated expectations. The stock will suffer as these unit forecasts are reduced to more accurate figures.
Oh really? What are the unit forecast sales for iPhone 4s and what do you expect they will actually be? Are you shorting the stock?
Did you actually read what I wrote before quoting and responding?
Nothing to do with what you are saying... just an observation.
The funniest thing to me about discussing AAPL is when the rest of the market tanks and AAPL tanks with it, all we hear about is how badly AAPL is performing. If the Naz tanked 10% over 2 weeks but AAPL only tanked 8% during that time... do you really think we'd hear about how well AAPL is doing against the rest of the market.
I have a 3GS so do several of my friends/peers 45-50 years old, professional, financially independent, predominately male. The iPhone 4 was a great entry point for those in this demographic who were still using blackberries and had not made the switch with 3GS. For those few still using blackberries There are some who are going to migrate to iPhone 4s and some waiting for iPhone 5.
For me personally I am not going to migrate off of 3GS until iPhone 5 and I do not know of any current iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 user moving to iPhone 4S. All are waiting for iPhone 5.
It is the unit forecasts for iPhone 4s that have inflated expectations. The stock will suffer as these unit forecasts are reduced to more accurate figures.
Yeah, except I think you missed the part where Tim Cook says that Apple has less than 10% of the global mobile handset market. That was significant, bupecause it shows you that Apple isn't necessarily going after people who have iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 today... Apple is eyeing all of the people who are still not using smartphones, worldwide.
Nothing to do with what you are saying... just an observation.
The funniest thing to me about discussing AAPL is when the rest of the market tanks and AAPL tanks with it, all we hear about is how badly AAPL is performing. If the Naz tanked 10% over 2 weeks but AAPL only tanked 8% during that time... do you really think we'd hear about how well AAPL is doing against the rest of the market.
And while this wasn't addressed to me, I think it represents some of the problem above. All they did was make a simple factual observation about two days in the market. They did not say that it was meaningful in the long term, nor did they explain that Apple is on the wrong track. In fact, they even expressed to the contrary that the market will come around.
Have you been responding to too many trolls or something?
You're being ridiculous. Why would he even bring up Apple's one day stock performance in a thread about the new iPhone if he didn't think they were related?
And several people specifically said that Apple's stock performance was an indication that Wall Street didn't think the iPhone was any good.
When the Apple haters discuss Apple suing Samsung for copying the iPhone design, design doesn't matter. When Apple releases a new phone without any design changes, design suddenly matters most. Hypocrites.
You're being ridiculous. Why would he even bring up Apple's one day stock performance in a thread about the new iPhone if he didn't think they were related?
And several people specifically said that Apple's stock performance was an indication that Wall Street didn't think the iPhone was any good.
I brought it up because you had written that Wall Street's view of Apple's announcement had now turned quite positive. I noted that was probably being premature and not a "quite positive" reaction since Apple was still under-performing the overall NASDAQ the following day. I also wrote that I believe investors would come around to a more positive outlook sooner rather than later.
Originally Posted by island hermit
The reaction on Wall Street is now quite positive... One. Day. After. the unveiling.
Comments
+1 and here here!
Tm Cook's approach to the release did seem to be a bit lack-luster (
The 'problem' is that Tim has no interest, it seems, in being the rock god personality that Steve became. And given the issues Apple has had with Steve's fame it is a wise decision
A friend of mine once said the Steve was like Richard Gere's character in Chicago. Both could roll out a turd and by force of their personality get you to buy ten and love them. And to a point, I have to agree.
[on edit: trailing the Naz by less than 1% does not a negative reaction make... neutral... sure... but not negative]
Actually it could. It really depends on whether, in relation to the movement of other stocks in the market, AAPL's move was statistically significantly different from 'zero' or not.
It's all relative.
...
You just don't like to be wrong about anything. I think I've figured it out.
Anyone who understands the topic and has followed the discussion can decide for themselves.
Historical data: Android marketshare is now greater than iOS marketshare and growing, both within the U.S. and worldwide.
That's irrelevant.
(If you disagree, tell us why).
I don't disagree that Apple will see good sales. From my perspective, the debate concerns what it could have been.
I know what you are trying to say but do we know yet what it could have been? Did the fat lady sing?
Any iPhone 4 owners upgrading?.
Sure. Lots of them. Just read these forums for examples.
Thus, doom for Apple? The response to Android depends on other far-reaching operating systems competing at all ranges of the market. If no such response arrives (e.g. competitors like Microsoft fail) Android will continue to grow in market share. That does not mean much for Apple, though. Android has to convince current iPhone users, en masse, to migrate to Android for the material impact to take place, and that's not happening (nor do I expect it will unless Apple sits on its laurels and Android and its marketplace starts to receive some really great polish).
Marketshare is not the statistic to look for in determining the success of every platform. It may be vital if, like Google, what you really want is eyeballs and clicks, or if, like some PC manufacturers, you're operating on extremely slender margins, but for Apple what they need is their slice of the high end market.
Market share is not all that important. Apple was making lots of money on the iPhone even when they were less than 1% of phones sold. Similarly, Apple making a ton of money on their computers - even though their market share is relatively small.
Apple has chosen to go after the profitable niches in both computers and phones. They are not the least bit interested in the "how cheaply can I buy a product" segment.
For Apple to compete on marketshare as Android does it will have to license its operating system to other hardware manufacturers. If they had done that, Android would never have grown as it did. If they did that, they would start to eat heavily into Android's marketshare. But in doing this, they would also have to sacrifice so much of what makes the iPhone such an exceptional device, and they'd probably also be making a terrible business decision.
That is, of course, nonsense. First, Apple doesn't compete on market share. They're happy to take as much share as they can get, but not at the expense of profit. Second, even without licensing, the #1 and #2 phones in the country are iPhones. iOS currently has the highest share of any portable OS.
Market share is not the goal. Profits are - and Apple is doing extremely well.
Apple is still under-performing the market since the iPhone4S announcement.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL
HP, Dell, Microsoft, Amazon and most other high profile tech stocks on the NASDAQ have done better (as a percentage) than Apple today, as did the overall NASDAQ average. I don't think they've convinced investors quite yet, but they'll come around, probably sooner rather than later.
I see. So you're also one of those who can't evaluate a product for yourself but has to make the erroneous assumption that short term market share swings are critical?
As you know, lots of rumors drive the stock before and after a big announcement, so swings on the day of an announcement are relatively meaningless. To determine if a company is on the right track, you have to look at a longer trend. For example, Apple's stock is about 10% higher than it was 6 months ago. NASDAQ, for comparison, is about 10% lower than 6 months ago.
So how do you conclude that Apple is on the wrong track?
Actually it could. It really depends on whether, in relation to the movement of other stocks in the market, AAPL's move was statistically significantly different from 'zero' or not.
It's all relative.
Sorry, I think you might have typed that wrong.
Are you saying that if there was a significant difference (ie. 3% difference even if AAPL was positive) or are you saying that it doesn't matter if it's even less than 1%?
[I'm basing this on a historical perspective of AAPL, which, to me, is open the most under rewarded stocks in the market.... so it tends to play a little differently anyway]
[on edit: This all started because I said that investors were showing a positive sentiment for AAPL by bringing it into positive territory... at that time there was ~ - .4% difference.]
You just don't like to be wrong about anything.
Anyone who says this sort of shit really hasn't thought about it.
I'll match the number of times that I've apologized to someone for being wrong with anyone on this board.
Maybe I just don't think you're right... especially when you start talking about RIMM reacting to AAPL's announcement when it was just reacting with every other stock, including AAPL, to a market upswing. It doesn't give me much confidence in your knowledge.
That is what people don't understand. So many argue about this being "the best" or that being "the best", but other than some freakazoids on internet forums, vanishingly small numbers of consumers care about the very best.
Tell me who sells more cars - Ferrari or Honda? Yeah, now tell me who sells more phones, the spec whores or Apple?
Apple knows that they do NOT have to be the best. They just need to be good enough. And the profits will roll in.
Simple as that.
No, that's comparison is flawed, because Apple is also at the top tier.
Apple itself is like Ferrari and others. Cutting edge, great overall package. Everyone loves it
Android phones are like standard but uber tuned cars. They do everything possible to get those 100 extra hp, even if at the end the car itself isn't as good as it could be.
Market share is not all that important. Apple was making lots of money on the iPhone even when they were less than 1% of phones sold. Similarly, Apple making a ton of money on their computers - even though their market share is relatively small.
Apple has chosen to go after the profitable niches in both computers and phones. They are not the least bit interested in the "how cheaply can I buy a product" segment.
We don't disagree. Why do you think we do?
That is, of course, nonsense. First, Apple doesn't compete on market share. They're happy to take as much share as they can get, but not at the expense of profit. Second, even without licensing, the #1 and #2 phones in the country are iPhones. iOS currently has the highest share of any portable OS.
Market share is not the goal. Profits are - and Apple is doing extremely well.
First, how is that nonsense? Especially the statement you bolded?
Are you reading something into discussion which wasn't written? Once again, we don't disagree. I was giving an example of what Apple would have to do to compete with Android in terms of marketshare, but in that same paragraph I pointed out why I thought it would be a bad idea, and that it would strip the iPhone of many qualities which make it such a wonderful device. And in that same post I went on to explain why market share is not an important statistic for measuring the success of the iPhone.
I see. So you're also one of those who can't evaluate a product for yourself but has to make the erroneous assumption that short term market share swings are critical? [...] So how do you conclude that Apple is on the wrong track?
And while this wasn't addressed to me, I think it represents some of the problem above. All they did was make a simple factual observation about two days in the market. They did not say that it was meaningful in the long term, nor did they explain that Apple is on the wrong track. In fact, they even expressed to the contrary that the market will come around.
Have you been responding to too many trolls or something?
For me personally I am not going to migrate off of 3GS until iPhone 5 and I do not know of any current iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 user moving to iPhone 4S. All are waiting for iPhone 5.
It is the unit forecasts for iPhone 4s that have inflated expectations. The stock will suffer as these unit forecasts are reduced to more accurate figures.
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:Apple is still under-performing the market since the iPhone4S announcement.
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:AAPL
HP, Dell, Microsoft, Amazon and most other high profile tech stocks on the NASDAQ have done better (as a percentage) than Apple today, as did the overall NASDAQ average. I don't think they've convinced investors quite yet, but they'll come around, probably sooner rather than later.
Your response:
I see. So you're also one of those who can't evaluate a product for yourself but has to make the erroneous assumption that short term market share swings are critical?
As you know, lots of rumors drive the stock before and after a big announcement, so swings on the day of an announcement are relatively meaningless. To determine if a company is on the right track, you have to look at a longer trend. For example, Apple's stock is about 10% higher than it was 6 months ago. NASDAQ, for comparison, is about 10% lower than 6 months ago.
So how do you conclude that Apple is on the wrong track?
Did you actually read what I wrote before quoting and responding?
...and the 3GS
...the 3
...the latest iPod
...the nano
...the initial iPod
i wasn't here for the first release of OSX, was it like this?
How are all those working out?
Check out the 2001 video of Jobs introducing the iPod. It looks like the same venue at their campus and the audience seemed less impressed than the iPhone 4 event yesterday.
It is the unit forecasts for iPhone 4s that have inflated expectations. The stock will suffer as these unit forecasts are reduced to more accurate figures.
Oh really? What are the unit forecast sales for iPhone 4s and what do you expect they will actually be? Are you shorting the stock?
Did you actually read what I wrote before quoting and responding?
Nothing to do with what you are saying... just an observation.
The funniest thing to me about discussing AAPL is when the rest of the market tanks and AAPL tanks with it, all we hear about is how badly AAPL is performing. If the Naz tanked 10% over 2 weeks but AAPL only tanked 8% during that time... do you really think we'd hear about how well AAPL is doing against the rest of the market.
Har!
I have a 3GS so do several of my friends/peers 45-50 years old, professional, financially independent, predominately male. The iPhone 4 was a great entry point for those in this demographic who were still using blackberries and had not made the switch with 3GS. For those few still using blackberries There are some who are going to migrate to iPhone 4s and some waiting for iPhone 5.
For me personally I am not going to migrate off of 3GS until iPhone 5 and I do not know of any current iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 user moving to iPhone 4S. All are waiting for iPhone 5.
It is the unit forecasts for iPhone 4s that have inflated expectations. The stock will suffer as these unit forecasts are reduced to more accurate figures.
Yeah, except I think you missed the part where Tim Cook says that Apple has less than 10% of the global mobile handset market. That was significant, bupecause it shows you that Apple isn't necessarily going after people who have iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 today... Apple is eyeing all of the people who are still not using smartphones, worldwide.
Nothing to do with what you are saying... just an observation.
The funniest thing to me about discussing AAPL is when the rest of the market tanks and AAPL tanks with it, all we hear about is how badly AAPL is performing. If the Naz tanked 10% over 2 weeks but AAPL only tanked 8% during that time... do you really think we'd hear about how well AAPL is doing against the rest of the market.
Har!
Fair enough.
And while this wasn't addressed to me, I think it represents some of the problem above. All they did was make a simple factual observation about two days in the market. They did not say that it was meaningful in the long term, nor did they explain that Apple is on the wrong track. In fact, they even expressed to the contrary that the market will come around.
Have you been responding to too many trolls or something?
You're being ridiculous. Why would he even bring up Apple's one day stock performance in a thread about the new iPhone if he didn't think they were related?
And several people specifically said that Apple's stock performance was an indication that Wall Street didn't think the iPhone was any good.
You're being ridiculous. Why would he even bring up Apple's one day stock performance in a thread about the new iPhone if he didn't think they were related?
And several people specifically said that Apple's stock performance was an indication that Wall Street didn't think the iPhone was any good.
I brought it up because you had written that Wall Street's view of Apple's announcement had now turned quite positive. I noted that was probably being premature and not a "quite positive" reaction since Apple was still under-performing the overall NASDAQ the following day. I also wrote that I believe investors would come around to a more positive outlook sooner rather than later.
Originally Posted by island hermit
The reaction on Wall Street is now quite positive... One. Day. After. the unveiling.