They call it guidance because they are guiding shareholders. If it was found to be an intentional "ruse" as you suggest I'm sure they could be sued by their shareholder.
They call it guidance because they are guiding shareholders. If it was found to be an intentional "ruse" as you suggest I'm sure they could be sued by their shareholder.
If that isn't enough... from January 2013:
“Beginning this fiscal year, we are reorganizing the presentation of our results to provide greater transparency,” Oppenheimer said. “In recent years, our guidance reflected a conservative point estimate of results every quarter that we had reasonable confidence in achieving. Going forward, we plan to provide a range of guidance that reflects our belief of what we are likely to achieve.”
I think that flat guidance has worried a few analysts. I'm sure they expected guidance to be at least a tad higher considering that China Mobile just signed on.
Or it could be a ruse.
To try to restrain the outlandish WS predictions next time?
What a bunch of garbage. Apple has never competed in the low end of any product they have ever made. Apple continues to grow anyway. It develops new products it sees fit to market. It doesn't drop a ton of garbage every third Wednesday like others do. Do you realize how many of these low end products end up being sold at throw-away stores a few weeks after they are released? Apple isn't involved in this market because it doesn't have to be. The winner isn't the company that sells the most garbage, it's the one that sells what people keep and return to buy more. Every market can be "tapped" out but Apple has the ability to create new markets and has done so. Wall Street just doesn't understand great new products aren't released every week even when they think they should be. Wall Street is the worst click-bait organization in the world. It needs people to buy and sell stock so it makes money. Plain and simple.
The fallacy is that Apple creates new markets. Steve Jobs envisioned the iPad in the 80s and the technology just wasn't developed to do it until 2010. The iPad and iPhone are personal computers. There is no next category. Personal computers will continue to develop, but it will be like the development of the car. A big shift happens every 50 years. Unfortunately computers are not like cars. Computers are platform technologies and don't work well as niche markets, which is why Apple almost went out of business in the 90's. Apple has to address the larger market if it wants to be around in 50 years.
Unbelievable that the inability to make the 5s fast enough to meet the holiday demand means that Apple growth is declining, even as they post record sales and profits. Analysts are such morons masquerading as savants.
You can't compare the overall growth of the phone market to Apple when Apple doesn't play in every segment. The segment that is growing is the low end, but no one has proven that the low end is profitable.
IMO, Apple's biggest worry should be the large percentage of revenues that come from one product - iPhone. They need something new or need to do something significant with the iPad to increase its share of the pie. It's never good when a company is too dependent on one revenue stream.
Yes I can compare to growth of the overall market. That is precisely my point. If Apple doesn't address the growing market it can't grow. If the Denver Broncos refuse to play in the Super Bowl, they won't be champions. The high end of the market will dwindle to nothing in 20 years from now. Getting iPhone quality phones in 20 years will be like getting a ball point pen today. If Apple wants to be relevant it has to compete. It's obvious.
This horse shit about not needing to compete at the mid and low price points only applies to nascent technologies. That's over. If Apple doesn't adjust they will lose their position.
Guessing from your reply you know better than those guys at Apple on what to do.
Why not tell us what you would do if you are Tim Cook.
Try not to reply the same crap as new products which we all knw sort of.
No I'm not expecting a new product. I think that idea is horse shit. Apple needs to grow its platform. Start competing more on price and take market share. Yes that hits margin, but Apple can make up for it on services. It will sell more software and apps.
A bigger platform would allow it to dominate the mobile payment landscape. Hell, Apple could be a bank with its cash pile. It can't dominate mobile payments if it becomes a niche product.
Apple should be acquiring more and better assets that provide services that build the platform. Anything is better than sticking their heads in the sand by saying, "we'll just build good products and it will all work out"
Apple could pivot by striking deals with carriers to push the iPhone in exchange for discounts. Yes it would hit margin, but Apple doesn't need more cash, it needs a platform that will last. All these ideas can be done without sacrificing product quality.
If Apple really wanted to go crazy aggressive it could change its app hosting policies and start charging for free apps once the developer reach a certain number, like 100 million downloads. This would allow Apple to start skimming revenue from some of the big players like Google and Facebook. The cheaper Apple goes with the phones the more phones it would sell and the more leverage it would have against google and Facebook to charge for providing their app. Apple could kick Google's ass if it would just start thinking outside the box.
If it was Apple Mobile Phone Co, inc. you may have a point, but Apple, inc. makes top tier produces across several categories. Saying they need a long term story in phones is like saying they need a long term story in iPods. They need new products that expand their ecosystem as well as create new revenue streams. ...They may or may not have a hard time replicating the same exponential success of the iPhone, but they certainly can find ways increase revenues. The next killer product category may not even be a device but a service....
Are you fucking kidding me? You think the mobile phone market could be like the iPod market? Want to place any bets on that? I predict the mobile phone market is going to be like the indoor flushing toilet... It's here to stay FOREVER.
Everyone has a mouth and an ear and they run them more frequently than their urethra, which is serviced by the toilet.
And I agree Apple's next big money maker is probably a service. However, they need to use their pile of cash and great products to dominate the handset market so that they have a chance to provide that next service product.
Tim Cook needs to ask himself if he wants to be like IBM or Blackberry. Remember when the crackberries said Blackberry would never go away? If Blackberry were smart, it would have bought the push email patents instead of fighting against them and then locked everyone out of the market of push email. Had blackberry done that I would be typing on a Blackberry instead of an iPhone.
Yes I can compare to growth of the overall market. That is precisely my point. If Apple doesn't address the growing market it can't grow. If the Denver Broncos refuse to play in the Super Bowl, they won't be champions. The high end of the market will dwindle to nothing in 20 years from now. Getting iPhone quality phones in 20 years will be like getting a ball point pen today. If Apple wants to be relevant it has to compete. It's obvious.
This horse shit about not needing to compete at the mid and low price points only applies to nascent technologies. That's over. If Apple doesn't adjust they will lose their position.
you equate market share with winning.
in a capital market, profit share is winning.
To your take weak sauce analogy and twist it correctly and prove your logic wrong..... Why didn't the broncos play in the RoseBowl, the cotton bowl, the pro bowl, the iron bowl, the toilet bowl... because they didn't have to win _EVERY_ game, and in fact, in playing every game you weaken your self for the the important game. The broncos don't have a minor league team, a junior high team, a college team, a pop warner team... they focus on the minimum number of games needed to play to qualify as a NFL playoff team, and focus on winning the game that they value... the super bowl.
If apple wants to be relevant it has to innovate and stay above the fray, not stop R&D and climb into the race to the bottom. The don't send Jony Ive to design ball point pens, because Billions of pens are sold a year, and pens are communications devices, and Apple is selling NONE in that market.
Market share isn't important... market desire is important. the 'If you could afford it, what is the next smartphone would you buy' metric is consistently skewed that Apple retains its users, and attract current non-apple smartphone users.
when Apple's retention drops below 90% and Androids retention rate increases above 80%, that's when I would worry. Until then, Android users are just future iPhone users on training wheels.
you equate market share with winning.
in a capital market, profit share is winning.
To your take weak sauce analogy and twist it correctly and prove your logic wrong..... Why didn't the broncos play in the RoseBowl, the cotton bowl, the pro bowl, the iron bowl, the toilet bowl... because they didn't have to win _EVERY_ game, and in fact, in playing every game you weaken your self for the the important game. The broncos don't have a minor league team, a junior high team, a college team, a pop warner team... they focus on the minimum number of games needed to play to qualify as a NFL playoff team, and focus on winning the game that they value... the super bowl.
If apple wants to be relevant it has to innovate and stay above the fray, not stop R&D and climb into the race to the bottom. The don't send Jony Ive to design ball point pens, because Billions of pens are sold a year, and pens are communications devices, and Apple is selling NONE in that market.
Market share isn't important... market desire is important. the 'If you could afford it, what is the next smartphone would you buy' metric is consistently skewed that Apple retains its users, and attract current non-apple smartphone users.
when Apple's retention drops below 90% and Androids retention rate increases above 80%, that's when I would worry. Until then, Android users are just future iPhone users on training wheels.
Unfortunately you are wrong. A Samdung galaxy whatever is a substitute for an iPhone. If a user picks a Samdung they don't pick an iPhone. That isn't true for choosing between the Super Bowl and the rose bowl. Those are different markets and you know it. To keep with the analogy, the enterprise server market is like the rose bowl. Apple doesn't have to compete there if it doesn't wasn't to.
If Apple doesn't compete in the handset market, the low end and mid tier will erode it to nothing. Apple can continue to make a lot of money while that happens and eventually become irrelevant (which is what is happening to Microsoft). Or, it can use its good product and cash to be a long time participant in the handset market.
The fallacy is that Apple creates new markets. Steve Jobs envisioned the iPad in the 80s and the technology just wasn't developed to do it until 2010. The iPad and iPhone are personal computers. There is no next category. Personal computers will continue to develop, but it will be like the development of the car. A big shift happens every 50 years. Unfortunately computers are not like cars. Computers are platform technologies and don't work well as niche markets, which is why Apple almost went out of business in the 90's. Apple has to address the larger market if it wants to be around in 50 years.
Apple is addressing the larger market with China. The middle class in China is growing every year and soon will be larger than the entire US population.
Are you fucking kidding me? You think the mobile phone market could be like the iPod market? Want to place any bets on that? I predict the mobile phone market is going to be like the indoor flushing toilet... It's here to stay FOREVER.
Everyone has a mouth and an ear and they run them more frequently than their urethra, which is serviced by the toilet.
And I agree Apple's next big money maker is probably a service. However, they need to use their pile of cash and great products to dominate the handset market so that they have a chance to provide that next service product.
Tim Cook needs to ask himself if he wants to be like IBM or Blackberry. Remember when the crackberries said Blackberry would never go away? If Blackberry were smart, it would have bought the push email patents instead of fighting against them and then locked everyone out of the market of push email. Had blackberry done that I would be typing on a Blackberry instead of an iPhone.
Or, you target the 10% of the world population that control 70% of the gross domestic product.
Tim Cook needs to ask himself if he wants _Apple_ to be like Sotheby's.. a 270 year old company. Sotheby's does quite well NOT trying to be everyone's auctioneer.
Unfortunately you are wrong. A Samdung galaxy whatever is a substitute for an iPhone. If a user picks a Samdung they don't pick an iPhone. That isn't true for choosing between the Super Bowl and the rose bowl. Those are different markets and you know it. To keep with the analogy, the enterprise server market is like the rose bowl. Apple doesn't have to compete there if it doesn't wasn't to.
If Apple doesn't compete in the handset market, the low end and mid tier will erode it to nothing. Apple can continue to make a lot of money while that happens and eventually become irrelevant (which is what is happening to Microsoft). Or, it can use its good product and cash to be a long time participant in the handset market.
the 150K a year household income consumer and the -20K a year consumer (college student) is a different market and you know it.
The enterprise server market is Premier league Football... Totally different game;-) And the Bronco's didn't try to win that league either.
I understand your passion, and I do understand your underlying logic. I just feel it's flawed. I spent dinner with a person who told me I was arrogant in saying Apple didn't need to do NFC (after he spent 5 minutes saying NFC sucks). He was wedded on the fact that 'no one is buying iPhones' because 'everyone' is buying android based phones.
My feeling is you buy what you can afford. BMW isn't failing because it can't sell cars to college students. Eventually, people begin to generate cash flow and they learn what then need from a car and if they aspire a higher performing car will purchase a BMW once they can afford it. A lot just need a car. any car.. or a bus. But some people 'value' a 'good car,' and are willing to pay a premium for it. Apple's job is to make sure their devices attract enough of those people.and keep the 'delta' far enough to validate the profit premium.
The fact that people are not buying bicycles anymore (dumb cell phones) and are buying $0.99 android phones (Chevy Geo Metros) are learning how to be mobile device users, and what the desire in their phone. A lot of people just want a phone and a browser and maybe 1 more app (FaceSpaceter). They are not iPhone users. And they aren't Samsung users... they are 'cheap phone users.'
Eventually the question is ecosystem and experience stickiness. I'm arguing that apple has to innovate enough to keep the tactile experience above android/Samsung experience, give developers tools to build killer apps and establish a stickiness to the iTMS/AppStore (and eventually other transactional sub ecosystems).
In my analysis... the real threat isn't Samsung... It's Amazon. Only Apple and Amazon are positioned to deliver that hardware/software/apps/ecosystem that will compete in the Web 4.0 world.
The excitement is over for Apple...for now. I've followed Apple since 1980 with the Apple IIe.
The last decade - the Apple buzz was so strong. Steve J. created excitement. He was erratic and you never knew what he was going to do. I used to go to the Apple Stores all of the time, my kids excited, too. Waited with baited breath for keynote addresses.
Since Steve left, the buzz is gone. I rarely go to the Apple Store. I haven't watched a keynote in a couple of years.
Tim Cook is stale. All he talks about is how "wonderful" and "amazing" everything is.
I do have an iPhone 5s, as do my family members, but iOS 7 is a mess, half finished. The new sounds from the Owl City guy are terrible and make the iPhone sound like an Android phone with their cheap speakers. The iOS backgrounds? Not great at all. One of them looks like the grassy field from the Windows Vista/7 background. Terrible. Really. Standards are not high at Apple for software. I did find one background for my iPhone that I like, but the green in the corner is the same color as the battery indicator, so it looks like my battery is drained on my phone! iOS misses the mark bigtime.
Let's face it. Apple makes money like MS. Both are in the same boat of little growth. They are mature, stable stocks/companies to invest in. Both return dividends. Apple has matured to that state and I expect Apple to be more of a caricature of its former self.
Someone needs vision and drive on the software side and not make its software (iOS/OS X) be crap or mediocre or good (instead of insanely good).
Yes, the hardware is good. They make good products, but don't expect the stock to go much higher than it is now. I'm not an expert. Just my gut feeling of following Apple and seeing they have become like Microsoft.
Apple needs a radical troublemaker for a leader. Like Steve J. and the T-Mobile boss. Someone to shake and stir things up and keep the excitement going. Otherwise, it's flatlined.
Please don't get me wrong. I wish Apple had a good competitor, but it does not. The Android universe turns my stomach with sloppy products.
Some people here think that Apple stock should be higher because of good, record profits, but stocks are what they are because that is what people thing they should be or are willing to pay. Analysts are given too much credit on these boards. Apple is not seen as a massive growth stock as before. They are not creating buzz like Amazon and Google with their buying sprees.
Comments
Or it could be a ruse.
You're joking, right.
They call it guidance because they are guiding shareholders. If it was found to be an intentional "ruse" as you suggest I'm sure they could be sued by their shareholder.
They call it guidance because they are guiding shareholders. If it was found to be an intentional "ruse" as you suggest I'm sure they could be sued by their shareholder.
If that isn't enough... from January 2013:
“Beginning this fiscal year, we are reorganizing the presentation of our results to provide greater transparency,” Oppenheimer said. “In recent years, our guidance reflected a conservative point estimate of results every quarter that we had reasonable confidence in achieving. Going forward, we plan to provide a range of guidance that reflects our belief of what we are likely to achieve.”
Yes I was joking.
I think that flat guidance has worried a few analysts. I'm sure they expected guidance to be at least a tad higher considering that China Mobile just signed on.
Or it could be a ruse.
To try to restrain the outlandish WS predictions next time?
To try to restrain the outlandish WS predictions next time?
Huh?
This horse shit about not needing to compete at the mid and low price points only applies to nascent technologies. That's over. If Apple doesn't adjust they will lose their position.
I think he was adding to my comment. Read: It could be a ruse to try to restrain the outlandish WS predictions next time.
A bigger platform would allow it to dominate the mobile payment landscape. Hell, Apple could be a bank with its cash pile. It can't dominate mobile payments if it becomes a niche product.
Apple should be acquiring more and better assets that provide services that build the platform. Anything is better than sticking their heads in the sand by saying, "we'll just build good products and it will all work out"
Apple could pivot by striking deals with carriers to push the iPhone in exchange for discounts. Yes it would hit margin, but Apple doesn't need more cash, it needs a platform that will last. All these ideas can be done without sacrificing product quality.
If Apple really wanted to go crazy aggressive it could change its app hosting policies and start charging for free apps once the developer reach a certain number, like 100 million downloads. This would allow Apple to start skimming revenue from some of the big players like Google and Facebook. The cheaper Apple goes with the phones the more phones it would sell and the more leverage it would have against google and Facebook to charge for providing their app. Apple could kick Google's ass if it would just start thinking outside the box.
Huh?
I think he was adding to my comment. Read: It could be a ruse to try to restrain the outlandish WS predictions next time.
That was what I meant - was that the ruse that you meant?
Everyone has a mouth and an ear and they run them more frequently than their urethra, which is serviced by the toilet.
And I agree Apple's next big money maker is probably a service. However, they need to use their pile of cash and great products to dominate the handset market so that they have a chance to provide that next service product.
Tim Cook needs to ask himself if he wants to be like IBM or Blackberry. Remember when the crackberries said Blackberry would never go away? If Blackberry were smart, it would have bought the push email patents instead of fighting against them and then locked everyone out of the market of push email. Had blackberry done that I would be typing on a Blackberry instead of an iPhone.
Yes I can compare to growth of the overall market. That is precisely my point. If Apple doesn't address the growing market it can't grow. If the Denver Broncos refuse to play in the Super Bowl, they won't be champions. The high end of the market will dwindle to nothing in 20 years from now. Getting iPhone quality phones in 20 years will be like getting a ball point pen today. If Apple wants to be relevant it has to compete. It's obvious.
This horse shit about not needing to compete at the mid and low price points only applies to nascent technologies. That's over. If Apple doesn't adjust they will lose their position.
you equate market share with winning.
in a capital market, profit share is winning.
To your take weak sauce analogy and twist it correctly and prove your logic wrong..... Why didn't the broncos play in the RoseBowl, the cotton bowl, the pro bowl, the iron bowl, the toilet bowl... because they didn't have to win _EVERY_ game, and in fact, in playing every game you weaken your self for the the important game. The broncos don't have a minor league team, a junior high team, a college team, a pop warner team... they focus on the minimum number of games needed to play to qualify as a NFL playoff team, and focus on winning the game that they value... the super bowl.
If apple wants to be relevant it has to innovate and stay above the fray, not stop R&D and climb into the race to the bottom. The don't send Jony Ive to design ball point pens, because Billions of pens are sold a year, and pens are communications devices, and Apple is selling NONE in that market.
Market share isn't important... market desire is important. the 'If you could afford it, what is the next smartphone would you buy' metric is consistently skewed that Apple retains its users, and attract current non-apple smartphone users.
when Apple's retention drops below 90% and Androids retention rate increases above 80%, that's when I would worry. Until then, Android users are just future iPhone users on training wheels.
If Apple doesn't compete in the handset market, the low end and mid tier will erode it to nothing. Apple can continue to make a lot of money while that happens and eventually become irrelevant (which is what is happening to Microsoft). Or, it can use its good product and cash to be a long time participant in the handset market.
Apple is addressing the larger market with China. The middle class in China is growing every year and soon will be larger than the entire US population.
Are you fucking kidding me? You think the mobile phone market could be like the iPod market? Want to place any bets on that? I predict the mobile phone market is going to be like the indoor flushing toilet... It's here to stay FOREVER.
Everyone has a mouth and an ear and they run them more frequently than their urethra, which is serviced by the toilet.
And I agree Apple's next big money maker is probably a service. However, they need to use their pile of cash and great products to dominate the handset market so that they have a chance to provide that next service product.
Tim Cook needs to ask himself if he wants to be like IBM or Blackberry. Remember when the crackberries said Blackberry would never go away? If Blackberry were smart, it would have bought the push email patents instead of fighting against them and then locked everyone out of the market of push email. Had blackberry done that I would be typing on a Blackberry instead of an iPhone.
Or, you target the 10% of the world population that control 70% of the gross domestic product.
Tim Cook needs to ask himself if he wants _Apple_ to be like Sotheby's.. a 270 year old company. Sotheby's does quite well NOT trying to be everyone's auctioneer.
Unfortunately you are wrong. A Samdung galaxy whatever is a substitute for an iPhone. If a user picks a Samdung they don't pick an iPhone. That isn't true for choosing between the Super Bowl and the rose bowl. Those are different markets and you know it. To keep with the analogy, the enterprise server market is like the rose bowl. Apple doesn't have to compete there if it doesn't wasn't to.
If Apple doesn't compete in the handset market, the low end and mid tier will erode it to nothing. Apple can continue to make a lot of money while that happens and eventually become irrelevant (which is what is happening to Microsoft). Or, it can use its good product and cash to be a long time participant in the handset market.
the 150K a year household income consumer and the -20K a year consumer (college student) is a different market and you know it.
The enterprise server market is Premier league Football... Totally different game;-) And the Bronco's didn't try to win that league either.
I understand your passion, and I do understand your underlying logic. I just feel it's flawed. I spent dinner with a person who told me I was arrogant in saying Apple didn't need to do NFC (after he spent 5 minutes saying NFC sucks). He was wedded on the fact that 'no one is buying iPhones' because 'everyone' is buying android based phones.
My feeling is you buy what you can afford. BMW isn't failing because it can't sell cars to college students. Eventually, people begin to generate cash flow and they learn what then need from a car and if they aspire a higher performing car will purchase a BMW once they can afford it. A lot just need a car. any car.. or a bus. But some people 'value' a 'good car,' and are willing to pay a premium for it. Apple's job is to make sure their devices attract enough of those people.and keep the 'delta' far enough to validate the profit premium.
The fact that people are not buying bicycles anymore (dumb cell phones) and are buying $0.99 android phones (Chevy Geo Metros) are learning how to be mobile device users, and what the desire in their phone. A lot of people just want a phone and a browser and maybe 1 more app (FaceSpaceter). They are not iPhone users. And they aren't Samsung users... they are 'cheap phone users.'
Eventually the question is ecosystem and experience stickiness. I'm arguing that apple has to innovate enough to keep the tactile experience above android/Samsung experience, give developers tools to build killer apps and establish a stickiness to the iTMS/AppStore (and eventually other transactional sub ecosystems).
In my analysis... the real threat isn't Samsung... It's Amazon. Only Apple and Amazon are positioned to deliver that hardware/software/apps/ecosystem that will compete in the Web 4.0 world.
The excitement is over for Apple...for now. I've followed Apple since 1980 with the Apple IIe.
The last decade - the Apple buzz was so strong. Steve J. created excitement. He was erratic and you never knew what he was going to do. I used to go to the Apple Stores all of the time, my kids excited, too. Waited with baited breath for keynote addresses.
Since Steve left, the buzz is gone. I rarely go to the Apple Store. I haven't watched a keynote in a couple of years.
Tim Cook is stale. All he talks about is how "wonderful" and "amazing" everything is.
I do have an iPhone 5s, as do my family members, but iOS 7 is a mess, half finished. The new sounds from the Owl City guy are terrible and make the iPhone sound like an Android phone with their cheap speakers. The iOS backgrounds? Not great at all. One of them looks like the grassy field from the Windows Vista/7 background. Terrible. Really. Standards are not high at Apple for software. I did find one background for my iPhone that I like, but the green in the corner is the same color as the battery indicator, so it looks like my battery is drained on my phone! iOS misses the mark bigtime.
Let's face it. Apple makes money like MS. Both are in the same boat of little growth. They are mature, stable stocks/companies to invest in. Both return dividends. Apple has matured to that state and I expect Apple to be more of a caricature of its former self.
Someone needs vision and drive on the software side and not make its software (iOS/OS X) be crap or mediocre or good (instead of insanely good).
Yes, the hardware is good. They make good products, but don't expect the stock to go much higher than it is now. I'm not an expert. Just my gut feeling of following Apple and seeing they have become like Microsoft.
Apple needs a radical troublemaker for a leader. Like Steve J. and the T-Mobile boss. Someone to shake and stir things up and keep the excitement going. Otherwise, it's flatlined.
Please don't get me wrong. I wish Apple had a good competitor, but it does not. The Android universe turns my stomach with sloppy products.
Some people here think that Apple stock should be higher because of good, record profits, but stocks are what they are because that is what people thing they should be or are willing to pay. Analysts are given too much credit on these boards. Apple is not seen as a massive growth stock as before. They are not creating buzz like Amazon and Google with their buying sprees.