I can understand anyone buying in to AAPL mid way though Tim's reign feeling that way, but to be fair check out AAPL since Tim became CFO, he has been been pretty involved in Apple's success. I certainly would like to see APPL back where it belongs on merit but I doubt there is anyone that could do a better job just now. I often wonder of a guy like Elon Musk might do the trick and Tim go back to being CFO but who could do it?
+1 Someone like Elon Musk would bring élan to Apple. Unfortunately the Musks of the world a few and far between but if the stars align properly, these two companies could benefit from mutual synergies. Something tells me Musk is headed for Apple's Board but I think Apple has to reinvent itself on its own. For now Apple's predictable product cycle and lineup has been "priced in" and discounted by Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Which begs the question, whatever happened to Apple'a magic? AAPL's valuation will remain tragic until Apple can prove it's still capable of producing "new" magic!
+1 Someone like Elon Musk would bring élan to Apple. Unfortunately the Musks of the world a few and far between but if the stars align properly, these two companies could benefit from mutual synergies. Something tells me Musk is headed for Apple's Board but I think Apple has to reinvent itself on its own. For now Apple's predictable product cycle and lineup has been "priced in" and discounted by Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Which begs the question, whatever happened to Apple'a magic? AAPL's valuation will remain tragic until Apple can prove it's still capable of producing "new" magic!
Record quarter just past, selling all the right things in terms of the market.
The sales over Christmas must have been staggering. We called every family member we know asking if they would like our cast off iPad retinas as we got two new iPad Airs. Turned out they all had got or treated themselves to iPad Airs for Christmas too!
+1 Someone like Elon Musk would bring élan to Apple. Unfortunately the Musks of the world a few and far between but if the stars align properly, these two companies could benefit from mutual synergies. Something tells me Musk is headed for Apple's Board but I think Apple has to reinvent itself on its own. For now Apple's predictable product cycle and lineup has been "priced in" and discounted by Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Which begs the question, whatever happened to Apple'a magic? AAPL's valuation will remain tragic until Apple can prove it's still capable of producing "new" magic!
Steve Jobs can't be replaced. Bringing in someone like Elon Musk would look like a desperate attempt to clone Jobs. It would make the current executive team look weak.
Just curious what "magic" came from Apple between 2001 and 2007 besides the iTunes Store?
Nonsense. Institutional shareholding horizons are much shorter than those of individuals.
Moreover, they're most of the marginal traders (and hence, drivers of volatility) in the market.
What about the Federal Reserve pushing stimulus money into the market? Is that manipulation in the long run going to be a problem since they started to pull back from 85 billion to now 65 billion? Clearly they are going to slowly pull back. People talk about manipulation isn't the Fed one of the biggest offenders?
The sales over Christmas must have been staggering. We called every family member we know asking if they would like our cast off iPad retinas as we got two new iPad Airs. Turned out they all had got or treated themselves to iPad Airs for Christmas too!
I said this a while back when you are at the top there isn only one place to go, down. It's going to be hard for Apple to meet expectations even with record sales. If they miss even by a little the stock is going to take a hit like it did last time. In the US we love to do two things build up the underdog and then tear them down.
The potential for Apple is there. The TV, the games, the wearable, bigger phones, payment, cheaper phones, ipad pro, ... Problem is Apple is not delivering anything but incremental upgrades of existhing product. The stock needs a cataclyst, or hope of something to rise.
That being said, if institutional investment are low, when something do happens, the stock will rise quickly because they will all want to move in at the same time with huge amount of money.
ipods ? Also, the iphone didnt magicly appear in 2007, must have been cooking for years before that.
I guess I should have been more clear. I meant between iPod and iPhone. And yes Apple was working on iPhone during time. Presumably they're doing the same one with whatever new categories they're looking at. But honestly between the iPod and iPhone there was one game changing product and that was the iTunes Store.
If Apple's release schedule was spread out a bit more maybe we wouldn't be having these conversations. Big gaps with silence from Apple where they're not controlling the narrative only lead to FUD and D&G. We don't have new products to talk about so we're talking about anemic stock performance instead.
Steve Jobs can't be replaced. Bringing in someone like Elon Musk would look like a desperate attempt to clone Jobs. It would make the current executive team look weak.
Just curious what "magic" came from Apple between 2001 and 2007 besides the iTunes Store?
This is probably why Steve picked a solid guy able to take the heat. No one will ever match up yet anyone who ever tried would be matched up like it or not and fail however good they are. I wonder if any top likely candidates would even want that level of misery. Tim deserves a lot of credit for just being there, let alone doing a fantastic job, even if not full of Steve's magic.
But your assuming all Apple has up its sleeve as a so-called "iWatch" AND that there will be a continued decline in profits from existing products. If that's really how investors feel then let Apple keep buying back shares and maybe they can eventually take the company private.
I'm not assuming anything about Apple. I'm just trying to point out a logical argument why institutional investors are light on Apple. Obviously if Apple has a secret magic rabbit to pull out of their hat that will add another $20bil in profits their stock should do tremendously.
But you seem to be suggesting that people should be investing in Apple based on 'secret projects only Apple knows about that may or may not be super-big.' If you're a believer with a lot of faith..... have at it. But that is the very thing Apple fans gripe about.... "How come only Apple is expected to come up with something big?" You can't have I both ways. Apple either needs to find a way to turn around the decline in phone profits, or they need to release the Ta-Da product. If they don't that is fine too, they will continue to provide some of the best products out there- but they will be making less money and hence their shares will be worth less than if they were making more money.
Given the current 'knowns' of iPhones, iPads, iMacs, iTunes, iPods, iTv, and iWatches- none of them really matter all that much to Apples valuation other than the iPhone (and to a much lesser extent the iPad). Apple sold more iPhones and iPads than ever before last year and made less money on them. That was in a market still growing nicely. The market is getting flatter every year. Why do you believe their profits, specifically from phones, will not continue to decline? Are they going to be able to raise the price and sell even more of them? AT&T just today announced free international texting (awesome for consumers!). They acknowledged it was largely due to heat from T-Mobile, and have already stated their goal is to follow suit and get rid of subsidies. Do you believe getting rid of subsidies would be good or bad for Apple's profits?
'Taking the company private' seems to be something people throw out whenever there is negative speculation on Apple's share price (such as this article). But what would Apple do differently if they were private? If anything I think Apple is continuing to behave independently of what Wall Street thinks and should be commended for it. What products do you think they rushed or what decisions of theirs do you think they have made to bow to Wall Street? I really don't see any. Despite the lower holding from institutions they *still* own over 60% of Apple, so people wishing they'd take their ball and go home should probably reconsider.
It would be a different story if Apple was flailing around wildly trying to appease Wall Street (much like Yahoo a few years ago)- but they simply aren't. They're still busy being Apple and the stock is still doing quite nicely recently despite that.
The potential for Apple is there. The TV, the games, the wearable, bigger phones, payment, cheaper phones, ipad pro, ... Problem is Apple is not delivering anything but incremental upgrades of existhing product. The stock needs a cataclyst, or hope of something to rise.
That being said, if institutional investment are low, when something do happens, the stock will rise quickly because they will all want to move in at the same time with huge amount of money.
I've said on this thread and others that I don't like the big gap between product announcements. But as far as "incremental updates", we had plenty of years under Jobs whereby today's standards Apple's product releases would have been considered "incremental updates".
I suppose Apple could release a smart watch just because it would be something new/different but we have yet to see a real market for them. So far it's just tech geeks buying them. One, because most of them aren't very fashionable, and two, because what they do isn't that much different than what a smartphone already does. So it's pretty duplicative and who wants to spend $200-$300 on something just because you occasionally don't feel like pulling your phone out of your pocket? That's why I hope whatever Apple is working on will be different than the Pebble/Gear already on the market.
What about the Federal Reserve pushing stimulus money into the market? Is that manipulation in the long run going to be a problem since they started to pull back from 85 billion to now 65 billion? Clearly they are going to slowly pull back. People talk about manipulation isn't the Fed one of the biggest offenders?
It is precisely the Feds job to 'manipulate' (although that's not the word I would use). They've done a bloody brilliant job these past five years. All the chicken little fears have not come to pass (as sensible people expected).
I'm not assuming anything about Apple. I'm just trying to point out a logical argument why institutional investors are light on Apple. Obviously if Apple has a secret magic rabbit to pull out of their hat that will add another $20bil in profits their stock should do tremendously.
But you seem to be suggesting that people should be investing in Apple based on 'secret projects only Apple knows about that may or may not be super-big.' If you're a believer with a lot of faith..... have at it. But that is the very thing Apple fans gripe about.... "How come only Apple is expected to come up with something big?" You can't have I both ways. Apple either needs to find a way to turn around the decline in phone profits, or they need to release the Ta-Da product. If they don't that is fine too, they will continue to provide some of the best products out there- but they will be making less money and hence their shares will be worth less than if they were making more money.
Given the current 'knowns' of iPhones, iPads, iMacs, iTunes, iPods, iTv, and iWatches- none of them really matter all that much to Apples valuation other than the iPhone (and to a much lesser extent the iPad). Apple sold more iPhones and iPads than ever before last year and made less money on them. That was in a market still growing nicely. The market is getting flatter every year. Why do you believe their profits, specifically from phones, will not continue to decline? Are they going to be able to raise the price and sell even more of them? AT&T just today announced free international texting (awesome for consumers!). They acknowledged it was largely due to heat from T-Mobile, and have already stated their goal is to follow suit and get rid of subsidies. Do you believe getting rid of subsidies would be good or bad for Apple's profits?
'Taking the company private' seems to be something people throw out whenever there is negative speculation on Apple's share price (such as this article). But what would Apple do differently if they were private? If anything I think Apple is continuing to behave independently of what Wall Street thinks and should be commended for it. What products do you think they rushed or what decisions of theirs do you think they have made to bow to Wall Street? I really don't see any. Despite the lower holding from institutions they *still* own over 60% of Apple, so people wishing they'd take their ball and go home should probably reconsider.
It would be a different story if Apple was flailing around wildly trying to appease Wall Street (much like Yahoo a few years ago)- but they simply aren't. They're still busy being Apple and the stock is still doing quite nicely recently despite that.
Fair points. I do think if Apple could spread out product launches across the year things might be different. We could be talking about new iPads or a new Apple TV instead of Apple's stock price and wondering when new stuff is coming out. Or the nonsense around wanting Apple to make some large acquisition just because everyone else is doing it. Mind share is very important and Apple going quiet for 6-8 months at a time doesn't help things.
Well, Elon does have style, energy and enthusiasm, but so far, has only (recently) produced a profit once in 10 years, and that required other auto manufacturers to subsidize him, along with millions of taxpayers in California. That's known as "all hat, no cattle". Tim's record is more enviable.
....Which begs the question, whatever happened to Apple'a magic? AAPL's valuation will remain tragic until Apple can prove it's still capable of producing "new" magic!
Apple has the leading product in most, if not all, of the marketplaces it competes in. This is obvious by record setting profits and by all of it's competitors rushing (and failing) to copy the success of Apple. That's the "true magic". Just because the stock market reacts to hype rather than actual performance is not the fault of Apple, but rather that of the total greed and manipulation of the financial industry.
shareholder meeting in friday will be interesting, possibly dividend increase, but not sure if it helps, as lot of companies increase dividends, make buybacks, etc.
we will have to wait to another earnings report and hope that sales in China will help. Or sales in USA, which was poor in last Q.
As cool as they are, iPhones and iPads are in their 6th generation -- they're old! How about a killer app, something that rivals PayPal or Pandora (in earnings and disruption)? Whatever happened to Apple TV or wearables? Where's the beef?
Personally I "believe" there's magic in Apple's pipeline. But Cook's management and the company's underperformance has put Apple in a position of having to re-prove itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Comments
I can understand anyone buying in to AAPL mid way though Tim's reign feeling that way, but to be fair check out AAPL since Tim became CFO, he has been been pretty involved in Apple's success. I certainly would like to see APPL back where it belongs on merit but I doubt there is anyone that could do a better job just now. I often wonder of a guy like Elon Musk might do the trick and Tim go back to being CFO but who could do it?
+1 Someone like Elon Musk would bring élan to Apple. Unfortunately the Musks of the world a few and far between but if the stars align properly, these two companies could benefit from mutual synergies. Something tells me Musk is headed for Apple's Board but I think Apple has to reinvent itself on its own. For now Apple's predictable product cycle and lineup has been "priced in" and discounted by Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Which begs the question, whatever happened to Apple'a magic? AAPL's valuation will remain tragic until Apple can prove it's still capable of producing "new" magic!
So what.
Record quarter just past, selling all the right things in terms of the market.
My bad I should have said COO. None of these titles are natural to me coming from UK.
Believe me I would like to see it back.
The sales over Christmas must have been staggering. We called every family member we know asking if they would like our cast off iPad retinas as we got two new iPad Airs. Turned out they all had got or treated themselves to iPad Airs for Christmas too!
Just curious what "magic" came from Apple between 2001 and 2007 besides the iTunes Store?
Nonsense. Institutional shareholding horizons are much shorter than those of individuals.
Moreover, they're most of the marginal traders (and hence, drivers of volatility) in the market.
What about the Federal Reserve pushing stimulus money into the market? Is that manipulation in the long run going to be a problem since they started to pull back from 85 billion to now 65 billion? Clearly they are going to slowly pull back. People talk about manipulation isn't the Fed one of the biggest offenders?
The sales over Christmas must have been staggering. We called every family member we know asking if they would like our cast off iPad retinas as we got two new iPad Airs. Turned out they all had got or treated themselves to iPad Airs for Christmas too!
I said this a while back when you are at the top there isn only one place to go, down. It's going to be hard for Apple to meet expectations even with record sales. If they miss even by a little the stock is going to take a hit like it did last time. In the US we love to do two things build up the underdog and then tear them down.
The potential for Apple is there. The TV, the games, the wearable, bigger phones, payment, cheaper phones, ipad pro, ... Problem is Apple is not delivering anything but incremental upgrades of existhing product. The stock needs a cataclyst, or hope of something to rise.
That being said, if institutional investment are low, when something do happens, the stock will rise quickly because they will all want to move in at the same time with huge amount of money.
Just curious what "magic" came from Apple between 2001 and 2007 besides the iTunes Store?
ipods ? Also, the iphone didnt magicly appear in 2007, must have been cooking for years before that.
If Apple's release schedule was spread out a bit more maybe we wouldn't be having these conversations. Big gaps with silence from Apple where they're not controlling the narrative only lead to FUD and D&G. We don't have new products to talk about so we're talking about anemic stock performance instead.
This is probably why Steve picked a solid guy able to take the heat. No one will ever match up yet anyone who ever tried would be matched up like it or not and fail however good they are. I wonder if any top likely candidates would even want that level of misery. Tim deserves a lot of credit for just being there, let alone doing a fantastic job, even if not full of Steve's magic.
But your assuming all Apple has up its sleeve as a so-called "iWatch" AND that there will be a continued decline in profits from existing products. If that's really how investors feel then let Apple keep buying back shares and maybe they can eventually take the company private.
I'm not assuming anything about Apple. I'm just trying to point out a logical argument why institutional investors are light on Apple. Obviously if Apple has a secret magic rabbit to pull out of their hat that will add another $20bil in profits their stock should do tremendously.
But you seem to be suggesting that people should be investing in Apple based on 'secret projects only Apple knows about that may or may not be super-big.' If you're a believer with a lot of faith..... have at it. But that is the very thing Apple fans gripe about.... "How come only Apple is expected to come up with something big?" You can't have I both ways. Apple either needs to find a way to turn around the decline in phone profits, or they need to release the Ta-Da product. If they don't that is fine too, they will continue to provide some of the best products out there- but they will be making less money and hence their shares will be worth less than if they were making more money.
Given the current 'knowns' of iPhones, iPads, iMacs, iTunes, iPods, iTv, and iWatches- none of them really matter all that much to Apples valuation other than the iPhone (and to a much lesser extent the iPad). Apple sold more iPhones and iPads than ever before last year and made less money on them. That was in a market still growing nicely. The market is getting flatter every year. Why do you believe their profits, specifically from phones, will not continue to decline? Are they going to be able to raise the price and sell even more of them? AT&T just today announced free international texting (awesome for consumers!). They acknowledged it was largely due to heat from T-Mobile, and have already stated their goal is to follow suit and get rid of subsidies. Do you believe getting rid of subsidies would be good or bad for Apple's profits?
'Taking the company private' seems to be something people throw out whenever there is negative speculation on Apple's share price (such as this article). But what would Apple do differently if they were private? If anything I think Apple is continuing to behave independently of what Wall Street thinks and should be commended for it. What products do you think they rushed or what decisions of theirs do you think they have made to bow to Wall Street? I really don't see any. Despite the lower holding from institutions they *still* own over 60% of Apple, so people wishing they'd take their ball and go home should probably reconsider.
It would be a different story if Apple was flailing around wildly trying to appease Wall Street (much like Yahoo a few years ago)- but they simply aren't. They're still busy being Apple and the stock is still doing quite nicely recently despite that.
I suppose Apple could release a smart watch just because it would be something new/different but we have yet to see a real market for them. So far it's just tech geeks buying them. One, because most of them aren't very fashionable, and two, because what they do isn't that much different than what a smartphone already does. So it's pretty duplicative and who wants to spend $200-$300 on something just because you occasionally don't feel like pulling your phone out of your pocket? That's why I hope whatever Apple is working on will be different than the Pebble/Gear already on the market.
It is precisely the Feds job to 'manipulate' (although that's not the word I would use). They've done a bloody brilliant job these past five years. All the chicken little fears have not come to pass (as sensible people expected).
Someone like Elon Musk would bring élan to Apple.
Well, Elon does have style, energy and enthusiasm, but so far, has only (recently) produced a profit once in 10 years, and that required other auto manufacturers to subsidize him, along with millions of taxpayers in California. That's known as "all hat, no cattle". Tim's record is more enviable.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/
Apple has the leading product in most, if not all, of the marketplaces it competes in. This is obvious by record setting profits and by all of it's competitors rushing (and failing) to copy the success of Apple. That's the "true magic". Just because the stock market reacts to hype rather than actual performance is not the fault of Apple, but rather that of the total greed and manipulation of the financial industry.
shareholder meeting in friday will be interesting, possibly dividend increase, but not sure if it helps, as lot of companies increase dividends, make buybacks, etc.
we will have to wait to another earnings report and hope that sales in China will help. Or sales in USA, which was poor in last Q.
... but you have to factor in Apples size and valuation (which is what their stock price is based on)....
Yea, you'd think so. But in the case of AAPL, I'm not sure this is a good premise for argument.
As cool as they are, iPhones and iPads are in their 6th generation -- they're old! How about a killer app, something that rivals PayPal or Pandora (in earnings and disruption)? Whatever happened to Apple TV or wearables? Where's the beef?
Personally I "believe" there's magic in Apple's pipeline. But Cook's management and the company's underperformance has put Apple in a position of having to re-prove itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace.