Not exactly ideal; however, for a company once touted as the best in the world. I think Apple can do better, don't you? I sure hope you can at least agree with this comment.
Considering their retail and operations are best in their class, though they can do better I would argue they are consistently doing so all the time.
I agree their retail stores are good, but I personally visit their stores often and the quality of their personnel has clearly deterioted over the last 9 months. I have notified Apple of this fact with specifics, via their Investor Relations Department, and they were most appreciative of my feedback. I also have found that the morale of the employees is down, because of the fall of the price of the stock. The fall of the stock is having a ripple affect in many unanticipated ways, including the desireability Apple products. Of course, owning a substantial amount of Apple stock, I hope things improve.
The fall of the stock is having a ripple affect in many unanticipated ways, including the desireability Apple products. Of course, owning a substantial amount of Apple stock, I hope things improve.
How can stock price affect desirability? I never heard anyone say "that iDevice looks good but the stock price is only 430. That's a deal breaker. I mean it does most things I want, but that stock price is low. "
How can stock price affect desirability? I never heard anyone say "that iDevice looks good but the stock price is only 430. That's a deal breaker. I mean it does most things I want, but that stock price is low. "
Look through a couple of his posts and you'll find a lot of interesting "logic".
Actually a leveraged buy out is not a bad idea. Going private can be very good for a company. I work at such a company that went private a few years ago. It really help management take the focus off of the quarterly demands of Wall Street greed mongers. Wall Street isn't all bad the way that many seem to think, but if too much of your stock ends up being held by the wrong people it can have a very negative impact on long term management planning.
Now the question you have to ask would be going private be good for Apple long term. That is extremely difficult to say really. It certainly wouldn't hurt today when they have plenty of cash but in the future when they need investor support it could be.
I do wonder why you seem to imply that going private is so bad?
It depends on the situation. And every situation is different. What might be right & good for Dell may not be right & good (or necessary) for Apple. Also, when taking a company private involves taking on substantial debt (which is the case with any leveraged buyout), it can be bad... very bad. If a company gets itself in a position that every meeting involves discussions about how to service the debt, then that can become an unwelcome distraction.
I lay the chances of Apple buying Greece (with money left over) to be higher than anyone attempting to take Apple private. It's simply too big, IMO.
The drastic fall of the stock price poorly reflects on all aspects and products of the company, including credibility and consumer choices. People like winning companies; stock price included. Open your eyes and stop putting you head in the sand.
[quote name="jungmark" url="/t/156206/ceo-admits-apple-is-looking-at-new-categories-for-potential-products/30#post_2293174"] How can stock price affect desirability? I never heard anyone say "that iDevice looks good but the stock price is only 430. That's a deal breaker. I mean it does most things I want, but that stock price is low. "
The drastic fall of the stock price poorly reflects on all aspects and products of the company, including credibility and consumer choices. People like winning companies; stock price included. Open your eyes and stop putting you head in the sand.
The problem here is that nobody in their right mind would buy a electric only vehicle with todays battery technologies. Sale pretty much indicate that the only people actually buying cars like the Tesla are the ones that indeed are not in their right mind.
Don't get me wrong I like the idea of an electric drive car. The problem is we don't have a power source to provide energy for such cars in a way that most drivers would find acceptable. What the industry really needs is a clean nuclear source for such automobiles. To that end Apple really should be funneling some of their money into advanced reactor designs.
Wait, what? You think battery tech isn't up to snuff so we should be putting nuclear reactors in cars? Doesn't it seem more likely that it would be faster and cheaper to wring additional performance out of battery tech (and battery tech isn't static, the improvements are incremental but steady) than it would be to develop tiny, safe reactors that we would be bullet proof enough to deploy by the millions on accident prone highways?
By the time we could reasonably engineer such a thing we'll be seeing 500 mile range electric cars and a national infrastructure of high current charging stations.
I have decided, if you have been appointed a "moderator" and you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us, I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out of here!!!!!!
I have decided, if you have been appointed a "moderator" and you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us, I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
I have decided, if you have been appointed a "moderator" and you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us, I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
I have decided, if you have been appointed a "moderator" and you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us, I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
You were commenting on the brand PR, yet your posts suggest you know just enough to comment. Have you ever with anyone involved in corporate PR? You project a lot of words, yet little information.
…I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
Bye. I'll just ban you for that sweeping insult so you're not tempted to return (and when you do with another account, it'll be flagged more easily).
…you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us…
Well, I see a hundred or so results from dozens of sources over roughly a decade that show Apple remains on top in customer service, satisfaction, and in reports of quality. These are indicators that the people who buy Apple products are willing to speak up as to their quality. When people are looking to purchase a new product, they turn to each other and public sentiment to determine what they want. That's well-known.
I also see a claim that regular people take the stock price and recent PPS performance of a company into consideration before buying a product. Just a claim, mind, no proof. Nothing I've ever read has indicated that this would be the case, but I guess now we'll never truly know if it is since you were unwilling to expound.
Hear, hear! Apple never was, nor will it likely ever be a dividend cash-cow. If you're looking for that kind of instant return, AAPL is not for you. It's exactly these types of attitudes that have sent the stock "tanking" this quarter.
To be honest with you, after having been involved in the automobile industry for the past 18 years, I'd say putting the money in a pile and lighting it on fire would be about as productive as buying a car company focused on EV technology. No one at Apple knows anything about the auto industry, as far as I know. And with it being a very capital intensive industry (with low margins), turning a profit isn't so easy for even established players.
Many have made small fortunes in the auto industry. All you have to do is start with a large fortune... and it will soon be turned into a small fortune. I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk. I like dreamers. And who knows, maybe, in time, Tesla will pan out for him and his investors. But for right now, Tesla is just another money losing auto company with a cool concept. To maintain its growth, Apple needs to either develop some new category of consumer electronic device or refine an existing one to the point that they have another must have device that people will pay the "Apple premium" to have. Personally, I've yet to understand why Apple didn't snap up TiVo a couple of years ago when the share price was down.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgr111
Not exactly ideal; however, for a company once touted as the best in the world. I think Apple can do better, don't you? I sure hope you can at least agree with this comment.
Considering their retail and operations are best in their class, though they can do better I would argue they are consistently doing so all the time.
How can stock price affect desirability? I never heard anyone say "that iDevice looks good but the stock price is only 430. That's a deal breaker. I mean it does most things I want, but that stock price is low. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
How can stock price affect desirability? I never heard anyone say "that iDevice looks good but the stock price is only 430. That's a deal breaker. I mean it does most things I want, but that stock price is low. "
Look through a couple of his posts and you'll find a lot of interesting "logic".
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually a leveraged buy out is not a bad idea. Going private can be very good for a company. I work at such a company that went private a few years ago. It really help management take the focus off of the quarterly demands of Wall Street greed mongers. Wall Street isn't all bad the way that many seem to think, but if too much of your stock ends up being held by the wrong people it can have a very negative impact on long term management planning.
Now the question you have to ask would be going private be good for Apple long term. That is extremely difficult to say really. It certainly wouldn't hurt today when they have plenty of cash but in the future when they need investor support it could be.
I do wonder why you seem to imply that going private is so bad?
It depends on the situation. And every situation is different. What might be right & good for Dell may not be right & good (or necessary) for Apple. Also, when taking a company private involves taking on substantial debt (which is the case with any leveraged buyout), it can be bad... very bad. If a company gets itself in a position that every meeting involves discussions about how to service the debt, then that can become an unwelcome distraction.
I lay the chances of Apple buying Greece (with money left over) to be higher than anyone attempting to take Apple private. It's simply too big, IMO.
How can stock price affect desirability? I never heard anyone say "that iDevice looks good but the stock price is only 430. That's a deal breaker. I mean it does most things I want, but that stock price is low. "
The drastic fall of the stock price poorly reflects on all aspects and products of the company, including credibility and consumer choices. People like winning companies; stock price included. Open your eyes and stop putting you head in the sand.
Originally Posted by cgr111
The drastic fall of the stock price poorly reflects on all aspects and products of the company, including credibility and consumer choices.
Funny how consumers couldn't care less and will still rate Apple products highest.
Open your eyes.
Originally Posted by cgr111
Do you read the news? I guess not!
Having what to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The problem here is that nobody in their right mind would buy a electric only vehicle with todays battery technologies. Sale pretty much indicate that the only people actually buying cars like the Tesla are the ones that indeed are not in their right mind.
Don't get me wrong I like the idea of an electric drive car. The problem is we don't have a power source to provide energy for such cars in a way that most drivers would find acceptable. What the industry really needs is a clean nuclear source for such automobiles. To that end Apple really should be funneling some of their money into advanced reactor designs.
Wait, what? You think battery tech isn't up to snuff so we should be putting nuclear reactors in cars? Doesn't it seem more likely that it would be faster and cheaper to wring additional performance out of battery tech (and battery tech isn't static, the improvements are incremental but steady) than it would be to develop tiny, safe reactors that we would be bullet proof enough to deploy by the millions on accident prone highways?
By the time we could reasonably engineer such a thing we'll be seeing 500 mile range electric cars and a national infrastructure of high current charging stations.
I have decided, if you have been appointed a "moderator" and you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us, I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
I have decided, if you have been appointed a "moderator" and you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us, I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgr111
Do you read the news? I guess not!
You were commenting on the brand PR, yet your posts suggest you know just enough to comment. Have you ever with anyone involved in corporate PR? You project a lot of words, yet little information.
Originally Posted by cgr111
…I am truly wasting my time on this Forumn. So, good bye to all you morons! I'm out
Bye. I'll just ban you for that sweeping insult so you're not tempted to return (and when you do with another account, it'll be flagged more easily).
…you are supposed to be more informed than the rest of us…
Well, I see a hundred or so results from dozens of sources over roughly a decade that show Apple remains on top in customer service, satisfaction, and in reports of quality. These are indicators that the people who buy Apple products are willing to speak up as to their quality. When people are looking to purchase a new product, they turn to each other and public sentiment to determine what they want. That's well-known.
I also see a claim that regular people take the stock price and recent PPS performance of a company into consideration before buying a product. Just a claim, mind, no proof. Nothing I've ever read has indicated that this would be the case, but I guess now we'll never truly know if it is since you were unwilling to expound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode
Hear, hear! Apple never was, nor will it likely ever be a dividend cash-cow. If you're looking for that kind of instant return, AAPL is not for you. It's exactly these types of attitudes that have sent the stock "tanking" this quarter.
To be honest with you, after having been involved in the automobile industry for the past 18 years, I'd say putting the money in a pile and lighting it on fire would be about as productive as buying a car company focused on EV technology. No one at Apple knows anything about the auto industry, as far as I know. And with it being a very capital intensive industry (with low margins), turning a profit isn't so easy for even established players.
Many have made small fortunes in the auto industry. All you have to do is start with a large fortune... and it will soon be turned into a small fortune. I have a lot of respect for Elon Musk. I like dreamers. And who knows, maybe, in time, Tesla will pan out for him and his investors. But for right now, Tesla is just another money losing auto company with a cool concept. To maintain its growth, Apple needs to either develop some new category of consumer electronic device or refine an existing one to the point that they have another must have device that people will pay the "Apple premium" to have. Personally, I've yet to understand why Apple didn't snap up TiVo a couple of years ago when the share price was down.