"There is no lord but Apple, and Steve Jobs is its prophet"
As for your last paragraph, you have just explained why people are busy dumping their stock. Nice work.
Not sure how you read that. Apple reinvented those markets. You can't deny that. MP3 players were difficult to use prior. Tablets sucked prior. Smartphones too.
As for your last paragraph, you have just explained why people are busy dumping their stock. Nice work.
You still say that as though Apple should care. If people sell the stock, that's their choice (and your choice). It gets sold to someone else. The suggestions about what Apple should be doing are from people who want Apple to do something that convinces potential investors that the value of the stock is high so they can sell in future at a profit. Why not do that yourself instead of adding to the negative press? If people want the stock value to go up, don't go around proclaiming that the sky is falling unless there's a change of leadership or that Apple starts doing business contrary to how they've always done business. Instead go around saying that under the current leadership, they are hitting record numbers time and time again and their sales, revenue and profits are higher than anyone in the history of the world - they are outselling products sold at lower (sometimes zero) profit margins running an OS given away for free. If you repeat it often enough, you might even convince yourself.
If the decision is that they won't keep growing, that's ok. If people want to invest for growth, invest in startups. If people want to invest for the long term, invest in Apple, Google, Amazon etc.
You still say that as though Apple should care. If people sell the stock, that's their choice (and your choice). It gets sold to someone else. The suggestions about what Apple should be doing are from people who want Apple to do something that convinces potential investors that the value of the stock is high so they can sell in future at a profit. Why not do that yourself instead of adding to the negative press? If people want the stock value to go up, don't go around proclaiming that the sky is falling unless there's a change of leadership or that Apple starts doing business contrary to how they've always done business. Instead go around saying that under the current leadership, they are hitting record numbers time and time again and their sales, revenue and profits are higher than anyone in the history of the world - they are outselling products sold at lower (sometimes zero) profit margins running an OS given away for free. If you repeat it often enough, you might even convince yourself.
If the decision is that they won't keep growing, that's ok. If people want to invest for growth, invest in startups. If people want to invest for the long term, invest in Apple, Google, Amazon etc.
I am not sure I see the point of the above. No one is saying that the sky is falling, but merely that the current management is not, umm, managing the Apple franchise optimally. Why should they (the management) care that the stock is falling? Because if this go on much longer, the board will have no choice but to fire them -- remember, the board represents the SHAREHOLDERS. And why should they care that they might be fired? They are all independently wealthy (the senior management). I assume that's because they have pride, and they have loyalty to their company, and so if they really do believe they know what they are doing, they should articulate it. And no, I am not suggesting that they publish the product road map for the next two years on the Huffington Post. Again, remember: Apple was in a position of leadership twice before -- in the beginning, with the Apple II, and then in the mid-eighties, with the Mac, and they pissed it away both times doing the same thing as they are doing now: collecting fat margins and allowing more nimble competitors (which, amazingly, included IBM in 1981) to eat their lunch, and not being sufficiently innovative. As for why I don't talk the stock up -- because, while I am holding an armful of the stuff, I see issues, and I want to hear what the management has to say. Notice that the management did not even give a cogent response to Einhorn's proposal (Einhorn being (a) a well known smart guy and (b) in control half a billion dollars worth of AAPL) I am sure there are many reasons they think it is not a good idea -- let us hear some of them, so we know that they are not just blowing it off out of arrogance.
I am not sure I see the point of the above. No one is saying that the sky is falling, but merely that the current management is not, umm, managing the Apple franchise optimally.
How is being the most profitable company on the planet not optimal? That is the definition of optimal.
Why should they (the management) care that the stock is falling? Because if this go on much longer, the board will have no choice but to fire them -- remember, the board represents the SHAREHOLDERS.
You keep saying this but the interest of the board is primarily the health of the company as that is or should be the primary interest of the shareholders. The way you word it is that the board should put the interests of the shareholders before the company, which would suggest it's ok to drain the company's financial resources to give the shareholders a big payday. That's not what they are there to do.
It's not one or the other though, they have to do what's best for both and they already made a public statement about what they plan to do:
Again, remember: Apple was in a position of leadership twice before -- in the beginning, with the Apple II, and then in the mid-eighties, with the Mac, and they pissed it away both times doing the same thing as they are doing now: collecting fat margins and allowing more nimble competitors (which, amazingly, included IBM in 1981) to eat their lunch, and not being sufficiently innovative.
Again those words aren't accurate to describe what happened. When you say "more nimble", you mean sold at lower profits for a larger audience. Look at what's happening to Dell and HP. You could say Amazon is more nimble but do you want Apple to start churning out quarterly reports with revenues of billions and losses instead of profits? It's not in the best interests of shareholders to pursue loss-making business models.
How innovative do you think Samsung is with their S4?
...Again, remember: Apple was in a position of leadership twice before -- in the beginning, with the Apple II, and then in the mid-eighties, with the Mac, and they pissed it away both times doing the same thing as they are doing now: collecting fat margins and allowing more nimble competitors (which, amazingly, included IBM in 1981) to eat their lunch, and not being sufficiently innovative.
Not the same situation, Apple started to produce a confusing product line and failed to sell many products. Ie they weren't making money. This situation, they have 70% of the mobile profits, a great majority of the tablet profits, and a good chunk of the PC profits. They can't make enough product to sell.
And they've innovated: it's been 3 yrs since the iPad was released. What have other companies done in those three years?
No need to get so worked up. I'm trying to join the discussion and perhaps learn something. You've made some good points, but I'm still not so sure there isn't a middle ground somewhere between the Jobs approach and more openness. (This is in reply to Tallest Skil post #100 of this thread.)
Not the same situation, Apple started to produce a confusing product line and failed to sell many products. Ie they weren't making money. This situation, they have 70% of the mobile profits, a great majority of the tablet profits, and a good chunk of the PC profits. They can't make enough product to sell.
And they've innovated: it's been 3 yrs since the iPad was released. What have other companies done in those three years?
If you are so worried, sell and never come back.
Your first paragraph is just plain wrong -- they have been cutting back on their supplier orders, so no, there is no problem keeping up with demand.
Your second paragraph: other companies have done plenty. I think if you compare an android phone of three years ago with a new one, you will see some differences. Even more true of windows phones, and BlackBerry phones. Amazon's Kindle Fire line did not exist then, and has a line of very nice devices now. Dropbox has grown immensely, and is far better than Apple's iCloud (yes, I know opinions vary). Spotify and XBOX live are taking market away from iTunes. I could go on.
As for your third paragrah, you apparently think that "go **** yourself" is a valid debating tactic. I disagree.
Your first paragraph is just plain wrong -- they have been cutting back on their supplier orders, so no, there is no problem keeping up with demand.
Your second paragraph: other companies have done plenty. I think if you compare an android phone of three years ago with a new one, you will see some differences. Even more true of windows phones, and BlackBerry phones. Amazon's Kindle Fire line did not exist then, and has a line of very nice devices now. Dropbox has grown immensely, and is far better than Apple's iCloud (yes, I know opinions vary). Spotify and XBOX live are taking market away from iTunes. I could go on.
As for your third paragrah, you apparently think that "go **** yourself" is a valid debating tactic. I disagree.
1. Really, so you know their supply chain? Record number of iPhones sold. Couldn't keep up with demand; all from the earnings call.
2. The amazon kindle fire is a response to the iPad.
Why so many generalities? So what's so innovative about a larger screen for Android. If that's innovative, then surely the iPad mini is too. A stylus isn't innovative.
Windows phone is innovative because its not a copy of iOS.
Spotify and Xbox live market share? What's your source?
Comments
Not sure how you read that. Apple reinvented those markets. You can't deny that. MP3 players were difficult to use prior. Tablets sucked prior. Smartphones too.
Originally Posted by igriv
Let me paraphrase your first paragraph: "There is no lord but Apple, and Steve Jobs is its prophet"
As for your last paragraph, you have just explained why people are busy dumping their stock. Nice work.
Well, you're just full of nonsense today, aren't you?
You still say that as though Apple should care. If people sell the stock, that's their choice (and your choice). It gets sold to someone else. The suggestions about what Apple should be doing are from people who want Apple to do something that convinces potential investors that the value of the stock is high so they can sell in future at a profit. Why not do that yourself instead of adding to the negative press? If people want the stock value to go up, don't go around proclaiming that the sky is falling unless there's a change of leadership or that Apple starts doing business contrary to how they've always done business. Instead go around saying that under the current leadership, they are hitting record numbers time and time again and their sales, revenue and profits are higher than anyone in the history of the world - they are outselling products sold at lower (sometimes zero) profit margins running an OS given away for free. If you repeat it often enough, you might even convince yourself.
If the decision is that they won't keep growing, that's ok. If people want to invest for growth, invest in startups. If people want to invest for the long term, invest in Apple, Google, Amazon etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You still say that as though Apple should care. If people sell the stock, that's their choice (and your choice). It gets sold to someone else. The suggestions about what Apple should be doing are from people who want Apple to do something that convinces potential investors that the value of the stock is high so they can sell in future at a profit. Why not do that yourself instead of adding to the negative press? If people want the stock value to go up, don't go around proclaiming that the sky is falling unless there's a change of leadership or that Apple starts doing business contrary to how they've always done business. Instead go around saying that under the current leadership, they are hitting record numbers time and time again and their sales, revenue and profits are higher than anyone in the history of the world - they are outselling products sold at lower (sometimes zero) profit margins running an OS given away for free. If you repeat it often enough, you might even convince yourself.
If the decision is that they won't keep growing, that's ok. If people want to invest for growth, invest in startups. If people want to invest for the long term, invest in Apple, Google, Amazon etc.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }I am not sure I see the point of the above. No one is saying that the sky is falling, but merely that the current management is not, umm, managing the Apple franchise optimally. Why should they (the management) care that the stock is falling? Because if this go on much longer, the board will have no choice but to fire them -- remember, the board represents the SHAREHOLDERS. And why should they care that they might be fired? They are all independently wealthy (the senior management). I assume that's because they have pride, and they have loyalty to their company, and so if they really do believe they know what they are doing, they should articulate it. And no, I am not suggesting that they publish the product road map for the next two years on the Huffington Post. Again, remember: Apple was in a position of leadership twice before -- in the beginning, with the Apple II, and then in the mid-eighties, with the Mac, and they pissed it away both times doing the same thing as they are doing now: collecting fat margins and allowing more nimble competitors (which, amazingly, included IBM in 1981) to eat their lunch, and not being sufficiently innovative. As for why I don't talk the stock up -- because, while I am holding an armful of the stuff, I see issues, and I want to hear what the management has to say. Notice that the management did not even give a cogent response to Einhorn's proposal (Einhorn being (a) a well known smart guy and (b) in control half a billion dollars worth of AAPL) I am sure there are many reasons they think it is not a good idea -- let us hear some of them, so we know that they are not just blowing it off out of arrogance.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
How is being the most profitable company on the planet not optimal? That is the definition of optimal.
You keep saying this but the interest of the board is primarily the health of the company as that is or should be the primary interest of the shareholders. The way you word it is that the board should put the interests of the shareholders before the company, which would suggest it's ok to drain the company's financial resources to give the shareholders a big payday. That's not what they are there to do.
It's not one or the other though, they have to do what's best for both and they already made a public statement about what they plan to do:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/02/07Statement-by-Apple.html
Again those words aren't accurate to describe what happened. When you say "more nimble", you mean sold at lower profits for a larger audience. Look at what's happening to Dell and HP. You could say Amazon is more nimble but do you want Apple to start churning out quarterly reports with revenues of billions and losses instead of profits? It's not in the best interests of shareholders to pursue loss-making business models.
How innovative do you think Samsung is with their S4?
Not the same situation, Apple started to produce a confusing product line and failed to sell many products. Ie they weren't making money. This situation, they have 70% of the mobile profits, a great majority of the tablet profits, and a good chunk of the PC profits. They can't make enough product to sell.
And they've innovated: it's been 3 yrs since the iPad was released. What have other companies done in those three years?
If you are so worried, sell and never come back.
No need to get so worked up. I'm trying to join the discussion and perhaps learn something. You've made some good points, but I'm still not so sure there isn't a middle ground somewhere between the Jobs approach and more openness. (This is in reply to Tallest Skil post #100 of this thread.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Not the same situation, Apple started to produce a confusing product line and failed to sell many products. Ie they weren't making money. This situation, they have 70% of the mobile profits, a great majority of the tablet profits, and a good chunk of the PC profits. They can't make enough product to sell.
And they've innovated: it's been 3 yrs since the iPad was released. What have other companies done in those three years?
If you are so worried, sell and never come back.
Your first paragraph is just plain wrong -- they have been cutting back on their supplier orders, so no, there is no problem keeping up with demand.
Your second paragraph: other companies have done plenty. I think if you compare an android phone of three years ago with a new one, you will see some differences. Even more true of windows phones, and BlackBerry phones. Amazon's Kindle Fire line did not exist then, and has a line of very nice devices now. Dropbox has grown immensely, and is far better than Apple's iCloud (yes, I know opinions vary). Spotify and XBOX live are taking market away from iTunes. I could go on.
As for your third paragrah, you apparently think that "go **** yourself" is a valid debating tactic. I disagree.
Originally Posted by insider7
…I'm still not so sure there isn't a middle ground somewhere between the Jobs approach and more openness.
They can be as open as they want businessly. Don't tell anyone squat about new products, though.
Also, you probably hit "Reply", didn't you? That does nothing.
Thanks for the tip. I'll get the hang of it soon.
1. Really, so you know their supply chain? Record number of iPhones sold. Couldn't keep up with demand; all from the earnings call.
2. The amazon kindle fire is a response to the iPad.
Why so many generalities? So what's so innovative about a larger screen for Android. If that's innovative, then surely the iPad mini is too. A stylus isn't innovative.
Windows phone is innovative because its not a copy of iOS.
Spotify and Xbox live market share? What's your source?