I guess I should have been clear, new product lines. I figured it was understood from the context, but apparently not. iPhones and iPads are about tapped out in terms of revenue growth. But the point remains, initiating dividends had nothing to do with the slowing growth.
Sure, law of large numbers and all, but new product lines would at least provide better growth then what we've seen for the last 18 months.
OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?
The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?
OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?
The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?
Exactly. And if Benjamin Franklin had not allowed so much time to lapse in product and category development, he would have invented the electric light and not Thomas Edison.
OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?
The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?
I literally have no idea where the shitty CEO comment is coming from. Are you even responding to my comment? This started because I said paying dividends had absolutely nothing to do with slowing growth, but instead had to do with a lack of new product (lines).
Annually? Twice a year? (which is what bi-annual means, but you probably meant biennial and that is still disingenuous) Come on dude don't be a goof. When was the iPad released? Stop pretending it was just last year or something.
Growth has slowed to a standstill, it has nothing to do with the dividends and everything to do with no new product lines compounded by the sheer size of the company.
Growth has slowed to a standstill, it has nothing to do with the dividends and everything to do with no new product lines compounded by the sheer size of the company.
It did level off rather quickly there, but how often have they introduced something as big as that? The iPod laid a lot of the groundwork and partly tested the distribution model that later grew into the app store (still surprised a porn company hasn't purchased fap store okay no more parenthesized bad jokes). While they could introduce new categories where they currently have zero presence, it seems unlikely that they'll introduce anything that big in the near future. Looking at the example of the iphone, people typically grab their phone, wallet, and keys when they leave their house. Smartphone popularity pivoted on adding additional functionality to a class of device that they would carry anyway.
For every buyer there must be a corresponding seller, so who were the people willing to sell $14bn worth of Apple stock?
The previous large buybacks came from an agreement with a "financial institution" and a small portion from the open market. Most of Apple's biggest stockholders are banks and larger investment funds although no single institution has that many shares:
The reason to sell at this level is that Apple isn't a high growth company. If any of the funds bought in at say $300, selling at $500 would be a good return for them.
Comments
OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?
The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?
OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?
The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?
Exactly. And if Benjamin Franklin had not allowed so much time to lapse in product and category development, he would have invented the electric light and not Thomas Edison.
OK, so was Steve Jobs also a shitty CEO since he had such huge gaps between new product categories? For example, the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone 6 years later in 2007? And before that we had the Mac in 1984 or do you count the Newton when Jobs was gone as a huge success in this scenario?
The iPad has pretty much everything the iPhone had except a larger display and an idealized GUI and SDK for the display's new dimensions and yet that took 3 years to release, but now that Cook is charge you and Wall Street weirdly expect Apple to create a brand spankin new product category annually or bi-annually. Do you honestly not see how insane that sounds from a business standpoint?
I literally have no idea where the shitty CEO comment is coming from. Are you even responding to my comment? This started because I said paying dividends had absolutely nothing to do with slowing growth, but instead had to do with a lack of new product (lines).
Annually? Twice a year? (which is what bi-annual means, but you probably meant biennial and that is still disingenuous) Come on dude don't be a goof. When was the iPad released? Stop pretending it was just last year or something.
Growth has slowed to a standstill, it has nothing to do with the dividends and everything to do with no new product lines compounded by the sheer size of the company.
Growth has slowed to a standstill, it has nothing to do with the dividends and everything to do with no new product lines compounded by the sheer size of the company.
It did level off rather quickly there, but how often have they introduced something as big as that? The iPod laid a lot of the groundwork and partly tested the distribution model that later grew into the app store (still surprised a porn company hasn't purchased fap store okay no more parenthesized bad jokes). While they could introduce new categories where they currently have zero presence, it seems unlikely that they'll introduce anything that big in the near future. Looking at the example of the iphone, people typically grab their phone, wallet, and keys when they leave their house. Smartphone popularity pivoted on adding additional functionality to a class of device that they would carry anyway.
So, Tim does listen to Carl at the end. Hope Carl won't start dumping now when price is back up to the 520 range.
So, Tim does listen to Carl at the end. Hope Carl won't start dumping now when price is back up to the 520 range.
Interesting when Carl would sell any shares.
Not a chance before 700s I say. I don't see him selling then more than is customary to diversify a bit - 10% or so per $100 up
No way he is selling 1 share until minimum 600s - 500s are a joke to him and me -
Interesting when Carl would sell any shares.
Not a chance before 700s I say. I don't see him selling then more than is customary to diversify a bit - 10% or so per $100 up
No way he is selling 1 share until minimum 600s - 500s are a joke to him and me -
Interesting how Icahn's latest tiny investment had no effect after he tweeted it, in fact the price continued to fall.
When a company is as big as Apple, only serious money talks, the less than one percenters, like Carl Icahn should put up or shut up.
The previous large buybacks came from an agreement with a "financial institution" and a small portion from the open market. Most of Apple's biggest stockholders are banks and larger investment funds although no single institution has that many shares:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders
The reason to sell at this level is that Apple isn't a high growth company. If any of the funds bought in at say $300, selling at $500 would be a good return for them.
Then Tim and I can sit down and talk ... :smokey: