when a company has as its basic problem it can only manufacture something to sell once every 10 seconds i have real trouble finding fault with that. Apple stated last quarter it is funding the equipment to loan to manufacturers to get that down to one every 5 seconds or so . that aside they make more per quarter than any company in history or the present market grosses in a year ,control 75% of the cell phone profits with only 20% of the market. their biggest critique is they are loosing share to companies that are giving away up to 10 free phones if you buy just one. they are currently paying a dividend as well. and on the verge of a new product that will revolutionize tv and free us from not only remotes in the cushion but paying for cable shows we never watch and being prisoners of the "bundle" who would not want to buy into that ? no we like google because it sells our email content to advertisers sells keywords to the highest bidder and gives the guy with the deepest pockets ad space next to our searches to hell with finding the lowest price for an item (guess what the seller you want can't afford to outbid the good guy) and its yearly revenues are one quarters worth of apple profits apple needs to loose money one quarter lay off some workers and gain the streets respect for cutting losses. it needs to grub for a 2% profit like Alcoa or ford or give away everything to gain "market share"
i just cant stand this world anymore I'm going to eat some soup with a fork ! thats progress .
Except for their Squawk Box group (and a couple of folks in the 9 AM - 11 AM slots -- e.g., Quintanilla), the rest of CNBC's lineup -- esp. the midday and afternoon crowd -- is a rot-your-brain wasteland. Total bunch of maroons.
Spongebob is preferable to that crowd.
The only afternoon host I like is Maria Bartiromo. The rest are just awful.
Goldmund certainly is guilty of its share of misleading the masses, but it is mostly Hedge Funds that have plagued Apple. Nothing has changed in Apple's fundamentals, except they have improved, from when the same folks were pumping the stock up to $700. This is the classic Cramer leak some phoney bad news to the press to profit from.
Buffet is a smart guy. He, however, has said on the record he wouldn't buy Apple or Google because the companies valuations are hard to formulate. Buffet also is friends with Bill Gates and I doubt he'd buy Apple for that reason alone as he said he wouldn't buy Microsoft because of his friendship.
Apple's only issue in my mind as most of its business is depend on hardware sales. I would like to see it get more aggressive in software services. Especially cross platform services. For example, iAd should run across Android and Windows OS. This would put a hurt to Google in an area Google makes a lot of money, and meanwhile would be a great way for Apple to leverage the servie to advertise Apple products to users of other platforms.
I'd also like to see iCloud be platform independent. I also don't like Apple's change from .me to .icloud as an email suffix. .Me is more interesting and easier to write.
Buffet is a smart guy. He, however, has said on the record he wouldn't buy Apple or Google because the companies valuations are hard to formulate.
That's not what he said. He said he doesn't buy AAPL or MSFT because they're tech stocks and he doesn't understand tech all that well. He only buys into industries that he understands well.
He does, however, understand business valuation and he has made it quite clear that Apple's valuation is greater than the market value - which is why he has suggested that they should be buying their stock. Specifically, he compared it to buying dollar bills at $0.80 each.
That's not what he said. He said he doesn't buy AAPL or MSFT because they're tech stocks and he doesn't understand tech all that well. He only buys into industries that he understands well.
He does, however, understand business valuation and he has made it quite clear that Apple's valuation is greater than the market value - which is why he has suggested that they should be buying their stock. Specifically, he compared it to buying dollar bills at $0.80 each.
IMO It is all about share count. Apple should listen to Buffet and buy back when the price goes down to a certain level. Once they have reduced the number of shares out there, they should double the dividend. Apple will continue to make lots of money for years to come. It is all about supply and demand. Presently there are too many shares out there. Amazon and Google have way less than Apple.
Goldman Sachs is known to pump the prices for mischievous reasons. Remember their $200 oil price call just before oil prices collapsed? Unfortunately, Steve Jobs is not here anymore to drive AAPL up with vision and innovation. Tim Cook just drags the company along afraid to introduce radical changes. When iPhone 5 came out, I just took one look at it, played with it a bit and knew AAPL is doomed. There is something you can just feel by playing with the product, the sense you get from it beats all the insight you can get from spreadsheets, charts, and and analytics. Back in November, my $300 target on AAPL sounded crazy. Four months later it does not seem so crazy anymore. Until I see genuine change at Apple and products that are ahead of the market and not 1 year behind, I will stick with $300 price target.
That's not what he said. He said he doesn't buy AAPL or MSFT because they're tech stocks and he doesn't understand tech all that well. He only buys into industries that he understands well.
He does, however, understand business valuation and he has made it quite clear that Apple's valuation is greater than the market value - which is why he has suggested that they should be buying their stock. Specifically, he compared it to buying dollar bills at $0.80 each.
With all due respect, I think you have it wrong. Here he is at an investor meeting commenting on Apple and Google stating he doesn't understand these companies valuations. This does not mean he thinks they are bad investments, merely that he doesn't deal with these types of stocks.
Herehe is saying he wouldn't ever buy Microsoft because of his friendship with Gates. This is right after he bought a 5 percent stake in IBM.
Goldman Sachs is known to pump the prices for mischievous reasons. Remember their $200 oil price call just before oil prices collapsed? Unfortunately, Steve Jobs is not here anymore to drive AAPL up with vision and innovation. Tim Cook just drags the company along afraid to introduce radical changes. When iPhone 5 came out, I just took one look at it, played with it a bit and knew AAPL is doomed. There is something you can just feel by playing with the product, the sense you get from it beats all the insight you can get from spreadsheets, charts, and and analytics. Back in November, my $300 target on AAPL sounded crazy. Four months later it does not seem so crazy anymore. Until I see genuine change at Apple and products that are ahead of the market and not 1 year behind, I will stick with $300 price target.
Tim Cook has not been around long enough to judge him so harshly. You act like Apple came out with ground breaking products every month with Jobs around. The truth is Apple's resurgence was slow, but steady under Jobs. Apple has been a thoughtful, and calculating company. It started with the Jobs ditching the clone program and simplifying the product line up. Then came the iMac a couple of years later. Then OSX. The iPad came out years later. A Windows version a year later. ITunes somewhere in the Mix. Then another year or so came the iPad Nano. The iPhone came out long after the iPod, and the iPad years after the iPhone. These products required patience and planing. Jobs killed the tradeshows so Apple didn't have to be tied to some schedule in releasing products.
You are also mistaken about the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 is the by far the best phone ever, and Tim Cook presided over its release. It feels twice as light as the iPhone 4S. Speed is undeniably amazing. Further, it is beautifully crafted like a fine made watch. Unlike Samsung's cheaply made over priced plastic phones, the iPhone is made with metal and glass. The iPod Mini also occurred under Cook's watch. Job's secret was he allowed the creative people like Ive to create the products without management getting in the way. This hasn't changed since Jobs has passed.
Apple's stock drop has very little to do with Apple's management. Apple has always been heavily manipulated by Hedge Funds, and the media likes an underdog more then the champ. Nothing has changed with Apple's fundamentals from when Apple was at 700. Apple has exceeded guidance every time.
I saw an article on CNBC this afternoon saying innovation is the key to get investors back into Apple. I almost spit out my drink reading it. As if investors know the first thing about the most over used word ever.
What they mean is that Apple will go nowhere until the company drops iOS and MacOS X, and implements the full spectrum of MS Windows OS products.
Tim Cook has not been around long enough to judge him so harshly. You act like Apple came out with ground breaking products every month with Jobs around. The truth is Apple's resurgence was slow, but steady under Jobs. .
You judge Tim Cook too softly. Nowadays 6 months is too long. One fundamental miscalculation where the market is heading and the stock plunges. By the end of 2011, it was clear that consumers are starting to gravitate to larger screens. Tim Cook dropped the ball with 4" in October 2012. My point is not that iPhone 5 is bad but that it could have been so much better and easier to use, could have sold millions more and propelled AAPL to $800. I would not go into details for the sake of keeping this post short but by googling: Apple DNA Principles, and following the top link, you can see the top four mistakes Cook has made so far. The only thing in his defense I can come up with is that perhaps someone else in his place would have done even worse. May be that's why Steve Jobs chose him as the CEO - to minimize damage.
OK. I'm going to be perfectly honest in my assessment of Tim Cook, by starting out and saying that without a doubt, he is the #1 best process and supply manager in the world... possibly ever.
Stepping into the shoes of Steve Jobs... for any known or living person on this planet... is an impossible task. So yes, pulling your other silly statement that SJ chose TC to replace him was to minify the damage, I could agree. However, let's expand on that and ask: "Damage to who and what were the other possible choices?".
Jony Ives - as much as I love to see this guys passion for what he does, and his lovable English accent, SJ did the next best thing to free this guy from the day-to-day BS of being a CEO: he made him basically untouchable within the company with free reign and a Senior VP.
Phil Schiller - ah shucks. I like this guy "most of the time"... however, over the last couple of Apple presentations, he has laid on the "marketing speak" far to heavily, and added unneeded special sauce and a cherry to boot. Not necessary. Not "cool". And even if he is a great "rah rah' guy, I don't think he has what it takes to be the CEO. I'll catch some flak here, but I liken him a (VERY!) small bit to Steve Ballmer. Too much rah-rah and not enough "Just Do It... right please!"
Dan Riccio - who most people have never heard of, and I assume that he likes it this way. BTW: Senior VP Hardware Engineering
Bob Mansfield - I really like Bob, and it's rather obvious that he is a very important and highly respected figure at Apple HQ, both in mgmt. and within his teams. However, Bob seems to want to do what he considers "fun stuff" for the rest of his career... and I thoroughly respect that decision. He could have been a pretty compelling CEO I think. It's just that he doesn't want to and would rather retire (again) before putting up with day-to-day BS.
Craig Federighi - very articulate and well educated, seemingly patient, and "good looking" since sometimes that can be an advantage in getting people to listen to you. CEO material? Possibly. Better in the position that he currently is in at Apple? Probably without a doubt, which would lead to the question, how to replace him in that role(?) SJ surely saw this among other things, that swayed his decision away from Craig, most of all though, probably the "irreplaceable card".
Eddy Cue - I could keep this simple and just say "Ditto Craig Federighi"... save the "good looking" part ? But again I would like to stress the replacability of another key figure in Apple's success being almost impossible at this point in time. I would give Eddy a slight advantage to Craig, if only for the fact that he has more passion and emotion in his presentations.
... and in Apple SJ tradition.... there's just "One... More... Thing" (TM) ... or person I should mention...
Scott Forstall - I'm just going to say that I think that we haven't seen the last of "Scotty Boy"... and the next time we see him, I hope that I will cringe at calling him by a child's epitaph. He needs to grow up. Go on a journey. Maybe with a different venture or company. Possible 'walking in the footsteps" so to speak. Because I actually think he has the passion, hard-ball skills, that could make him an aggressive and competent CEO. Those "hard-ball skills" need to be honed a bit... just as the baseball analogy implies. The "Battle with the Bob" should teach him that if he's clever and humble enough to see it.
Scratch: any outside CEO and/or management guru alive.
So. That's my essay on why Tim Cook was and is the best that Apple or the world has to offer us at this point.
My one piece of advice for TC: I would like to see him kick that Southern Charm to the curb once... and really stalk that stage like SJ used to do, building up his confidence to spit out what he is thinking in no uncertain terms... rather than calmly stating his mind.
If there is one guy that I would love to see "jump ship" for Apple, that would be [URL=http://paulirish.com/]Paul Irish[/URL]. Not as CEO, but he could free up someone like Eddy Cue. Just a thought :smokey:
AAPL may be under-rated, but without Jobs the are nothing...And Wall St. knows it by emphatically dumping their stock, which is what GS is doing with this article. AAPL's executive team is OVER-RATED and they insist on proving it day in and day out. They obviuosly could care less about their investors, have zero idea what to do with 137B in cash, zero new products (or even better ones). The only major characteristic they have maintained since the unfortunate passing of Mr. Jobs is the arrogance of the execs and board. They should donate their $137k to a more worthy cause rather than build a modern day shrine to the man or throw money at products they can't build without the man himself.
Good luck AAPL!!! You guys had your day and contributed to us all...unfortunately superstars are impossible to replace, unless of course you have the right management in place. Cook has no "pizazz"...listening to him and watching him perform is like taking an ambion backed up by two shots of tequila. A complete six-month catastrophe in slow motion...when GS is finished spewing about how undervalued AAPL is, the stock will be at $200 by end of year, maybe even back to $5/share in the next five years. The price it was when Jobs rejoined and took over for the incumbant derelicts (grey suits). Cook and Co is driving this thing into the ground at record pace!!!
Comments
who would not want to buy into that ?
no we like google because it sells our email content to advertisers sells keywords to the highest bidder and gives the guy with the deepest pockets ad space next to our searches to hell with finding the lowest price for an item (guess what the seller you want can't afford to outbid the good guy) and its yearly revenues are one quarters worth of apple profits
apple needs to loose money one quarter lay off some workers and gain the streets respect for cutting losses. it needs to grub for a 2% profit like Alcoa or ford or give away everything to gain "market share"
i just cant stand this world anymore I'm going to eat some soup with a fork ! thats progress .
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Except for their Squawk Box group (and a couple of folks in the 9 AM - 11 AM slots -- e.g., Quintanilla), the rest of CNBC's lineup -- esp. the midday and afternoon crowd -- is a rot-your-brain wasteland. Total bunch of maroons.
Spongebob is preferable to that crowd.
The only afternoon host I like is Maria Bartiromo. The rest are just awful.
Buffet is a smart guy. He, however, has said on the record he wouldn't buy Apple or Google because the companies valuations are hard to formulate. Buffet also is friends with Bill Gates and I doubt he'd buy Apple for that reason alone as he said he wouldn't buy Microsoft because of his friendship.
Apple's only issue in my mind as most of its business is depend on hardware sales. I would like to see it get more aggressive in software services. Especially cross platform services. For example, iAd should run across Android and Windows OS. This would put a hurt to Google in an area Google makes a lot of money, and meanwhile would be a great way for Apple to leverage the servie to advertise Apple products to users of other platforms.
I'd also like to see iCloud be platform independent. I also don't like Apple's change from .me to .icloud as an email suffix. .Me is more interesting and easier to write.
That's not what he said. He said he doesn't buy AAPL or MSFT because they're tech stocks and he doesn't understand tech all that well. He only buys into industries that he understands well.
He does, however, understand business valuation and he has made it quite clear that Apple's valuation is greater than the market value - which is why he has suggested that they should be buying their stock. Specifically, he compared it to buying dollar bills at $0.80 each.
Railroads and Coca Cola are his thing.
I wonder what their holding is and whether this is an attempted pump and dump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's not what he said. He said he doesn't buy AAPL or MSFT because they're tech stocks and he doesn't understand tech all that well. He only buys into industries that he understands well.
He does, however, understand business valuation and he has made it quite clear that Apple's valuation is greater than the market value - which is why he has suggested that they should be buying their stock. Specifically, he compared it to buying dollar bills at $0.80 each.
With all due respect, I think you have it wrong. Here he is at an investor meeting commenting on Apple and Google stating he doesn't understand these companies valuations. This does not mean he thinks they are bad investments, merely that he doesn't deal with these types of stocks.
Here he is saying he wouldn't ever buy Microsoft because of his friendship with Gates. This is right after he bought a 5 percent stake in IBM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature
Goldman Sachs is known to pump the prices for mischievous reasons. Remember their $200 oil price call just before oil prices collapsed? Unfortunately, Steve Jobs is not here anymore to drive AAPL up with vision and innovation. Tim Cook just drags the company along afraid to introduce radical changes. When iPhone 5 came out, I just took one look at it, played with it a bit and knew AAPL is doomed. There is something you can just feel by playing with the product, the sense you get from it beats all the insight you can get from spreadsheets, charts, and and analytics. Back in November, my $300 target on AAPL sounded crazy. Four months later it does not seem so crazy anymore. Until I see genuine change at Apple and products that are ahead of the market and not 1 year behind, I will stick with $300 price target.
Tim Cook has not been around long enough to judge him so harshly. You act like Apple came out with ground breaking products every month with Jobs around. The truth is Apple's resurgence was slow, but steady under Jobs. Apple has been a thoughtful, and calculating company. It started with the Jobs ditching the clone program and simplifying the product line up. Then came the iMac a couple of years later. Then OSX. The iPad came out years later. A Windows version a year later. ITunes somewhere in the Mix. Then another year or so came the iPad Nano. The iPhone came out long after the iPod, and the iPad years after the iPhone. These products required patience and planing. Jobs killed the tradeshows so Apple didn't have to be tied to some schedule in releasing products.
You are also mistaken about the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 is the by far the best phone ever, and Tim Cook presided over its release. It feels twice as light as the iPhone 4S. Speed is undeniably amazing. Further, it is beautifully crafted like a fine made watch. Unlike Samsung's cheaply made over priced plastic phones, the iPhone is made with metal and glass. The iPod Mini also occurred under Cook's watch. Job's secret was he allowed the creative people like Ive to create the products without management getting in the way. This hasn't changed since Jobs has passed.
Apple's stock drop has very little to do with Apple's management. Apple has always been heavily manipulated by Hedge Funds, and the media likes an underdog more then the champ. Nothing has changed with Apple's fundamentals from when Apple was at 700. Apple has exceeded guidance every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I saw an article on CNBC this afternoon saying innovation is the key to get investors back into Apple. I almost spit out my drink reading it. As if investors know the first thing about the most over used word ever.
What they mean is that Apple will go nowhere until the company drops iOS and MacOS X, and implements the full spectrum of MS Windows OS products.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Tim Cook has not been around long enough to judge him so harshly. You act like Apple came out with ground breaking products every month with Jobs around. The truth is Apple's resurgence was slow, but steady under Jobs. .
You judge Tim Cook too softly. Nowadays 6 months is too long. One fundamental miscalculation where the market is heading and the stock plunges. By the end of 2011, it was clear that consumers are starting to gravitate to larger screens. Tim Cook dropped the ball with 4" in October 2012. My point is not that iPhone 5 is bad but that it could have been so much better and easier to use, could have sold millions more and propelled AAPL to $800. I would not go into details for the sake of keeping this post short but by googling: Apple DNA Principles, and following the top link, you can see the top four mistakes Cook has made so far. The only thing in his defense I can come up with is that perhaps someone else in his place would have done even worse. May be that's why Steve Jobs chose him as the CEO - to minimize damage.
OK. I'm going to be perfectly honest in my assessment of Tim Cook, by starting out and saying that without a doubt, he is the #1 best process and supply manager in the world... possibly ever.
Stepping into the shoes of Steve Jobs... for any known or living person on this planet... is an impossible task. So yes, pulling your other silly statement that SJ chose TC to replace him was to minify the damage, I could agree. However, let's expand on that and ask: "Damage to who and what were the other possible choices?".
... and in Apple SJ tradition.... there's just "One... More... Thing" (TM) ... or person I should mention...
Scott Forstall - I'm just going to say that I think that we haven't seen the last of "Scotty Boy"... and the next time we see him, I hope that I will cringe at calling him by a child's epitaph. He needs to grow up. Go on a journey. Maybe with a different venture or company. Possible 'walking in the footsteps" so to speak. Because I actually think he has the passion, hard-ball skills, that could make him an aggressive and competent CEO. Those "hard-ball skills" need to be honed a bit... just as the baseball analogy implies. The "Battle with the Bob" should teach him that if he's clever and humble enough to see it.
Scratch: any outside CEO and/or management guru alive.
So. That's my essay on why Tim Cook was and is the best that Apple or the world has to offer us at this point.
My one piece of advice for TC: I would like to see him kick that Southern Charm to the curb once... and really stalk that stage like SJ used to do, building up his confidence to spit out what he is thinking in no uncertain terms... rather than calmly stating his mind.
If there is one guy that I would love to see "jump ship" for Apple, that would be [URL=http://paulirish.com/]Paul Irish[/URL]. Not as CEO, but he could free up someone like Eddy Cue. Just a thought :smokey:
Good luck AAPL!!! You guys had your day and contributed to us all...unfortunately superstars are impossible to replace, unless of course you have the right management in place. Cook has no "pizazz"...listening to him and watching him perform is like taking an ambion backed up by two shots of tequila. A complete six-month catastrophe in slow motion...when GS is finished spewing about how undervalued AAPL is, the stock will be at $200 by end of year, maybe even back to $5/share in the next five years. The price it was when Jobs rejoined and took over for the incumbant derelicts (grey suits). Cook and Co is driving this thing into the ground at record pace!!!
If Goldman Sachs says buy, you should sell. Because that's how they roll....