Just checked. Michael Dell paid stockholders $25B to take Dell private. It was that low because Dell was tanking as a company. Apple is not tanking and would take a whole lot more than that measly amount to go private. EMC has a whole lot more to offer than cheap Dell servers and desktops. This new company will survive on EMC not anything Dell brings to the table.
Another example of short-term thinking to make quarterly numbers to please Wall Street is:
[...]
3. AppleTV. Should have had 4k and uncompressed audio. Should have hammered a TV package even if in the short-term they would make zero profit on it. Should have made a more gamer ready remote and Ax9 chip. Should have integrated Homekit. All these things would hurt short term profits but it would establish AppleTV as the standard in the all in one home box. If they did this they could easily sell 50-75 million AppleTV's with TV packages. AT that point Apple could negotiate with the content providers a better deal once they have a dominate position.
sorry but this is nonsense. you have no knowledge the market is reponsible for the ATV not doing the things you want it to . the A9 chip is likely supply constrained for the phones. 4k is not yet mainstream so they does not to support it, just like they did NFC before that and LTE before that.
I've always maintained that the 16GB model was neccesary for quarterly profits. And that any dip in profits would hurt the stock and Apple employees with stock options.
If they were a private company I would not support the 16GB strategy.
I imagine the reason there is a 16GB iPhone is because there is demand for one. I know lots of people who have iPhones and get by on the built in apps and nothing else.
I've always maintained that the 16GB model was neccesary for quarterly profits. And that any dip in profits would hurt the stock and Apple employees with stock options.
If they were a private company I would not support the 16GB strategy.
Either the strategy is right or it's not. And if it's not a good CEO would be able to explain to Wall Street and shareholders why it's not. Since 2012 Wall Street has been obsessed with this idea that Apple needs to sell a cheap phone for emerging markets. So far Apple has said no we don't agree and wer're not doing it. Apple's belief is there is no loyalty in the Android space and they will capture people as they move up the socioeconomic ladder. That's why Tim Cook often talks about the growing middle class in China. If a company believes in what they're doing a good CEO can sell that to Wall Street.
As far as the 16GB models I think that's mostly a function of Phil Schiller and the marketing department's obsession with the upsell. If you look at the messy iPad lineup it really seems to revolve around marketing's need to have product at a specific price point and a way to upsell you. I personally would like to see Apple move away from that business model but so long as Schiller is running marketing I don't think they will.
For a good number of users 16Gb is perfectly adequate. I'm one of them. It is a frigging phone with a few apps. That's it.
So exactly why do I need any more than 16Gb?
But hey, that's my Opinion so it don't count.
I'm sure there were a lot of 32GB owners that didn't need more than that yet Apple decided to give them 32GB more at no additional cost. Why (yes this is a rhetorical question)?
No way on earth does this acquisition happen if they were still a public company.
Absolute nonsense.
Btw, the deal will keep EMC public, and as a result, Dell is going to become quasi-public as well. You really should read up on how this merger has been structured. If anything, this is starting the process of Dell taking itself back to being public.
The 'evil' stock market has paid for a lot of retirements, college educations, house-builds, car purchases, and pretty much funded every non-profit out there including hospitals and colleges. It has resulted in trillions in charitable donations. Not to mention trillions in taxes to the government.
The only people who think the stock market is evil are sad class warriors.
Btw, the deal will keep EMC public, and as a result, Dell is going to become quasi-public as well. You really should read up on how this merger has been structured. If anything, this is starting the process of Dell taking itself back to being public.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
Btw, the deal will keep EMC public, and as a result, Dell is going to become quasi-public as well. You really should read up on how this merger has been structured. If anything, this is starting the process of Dell taking itself back to being public.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
There will be a tracking stock whose value will depend on the 19% that is publicly traded (Dell is buying 81%). Since Dell will be the owner, they will also have to file 10Qs, 10Ks, etc. I predict that it will be a matter of time before Dell itself starts to trade as a 'pink sheet', and Dell re-IPOs its stock.
There will be a tracking stock whose value will depend on the 19% that is publicly traded (Dell is buying 81%). Since Dell will be the owner, they will also have to file 10Qs, 10Ks, etc. I predict that it will be a matter of time before Dell itself starts to trade as a 'pink sheet', and Dell re-IPOs its stock.
One could speculate that would be how Dell gets his money back before his business goes down the drain.
Intel reports tomorrow. IDC/Gartner guesses predict a pretty bad quarter for PC sales. It will be interesting to see what Intel reports. It's funny how when Satya Nadella took over at Microsoft he got rid of the whole "devices & services" mantra yet he seems to be doubling down on that. Perhaps Surface Book was in the pipeline before he took over but he could have killed it if he wanted. My guess is Microsoft knows companies like Dell and HP are moving more into enterprise services and they don't care about the smaller players like Acer and Asus (according to re/code the Asus chairman was none too pleased that Microsoft announced a laptop).
Microsoft is basically saying we want to own the premium segment. Companies like Dell, HP and Lenovo can just focus on enterprise sales. What's left is the low margin cheap consumer segment and I don't see many companies surviving on that. My guess is companies like Asus and Acer won't be around much longer or will get snatched up by someone else.
I'm curious to see what Q4 will look like. There was little to no new hardware in Q3 and Skylake is releasing now.
Acer's offerings have been looking quite poor for years, I'm surprised they're still around.
ASUS still has some interesting devices from time to time. Of course, their components (motherboards/graphics cards/etc.) are generally well received.
As for Dell, they've just announced their new line of premium Skylake devices. Building off the success of their early-2015 XPS 13, their new devices all use their near bezel-less design, light weight materials such as aluminum/carbon fiber and they use new technologies, such as Thunderbolt 3 ports. By the looks of it, they haven't exactly given up on the premium market.
"A year after taking Dell Inc. private in a $24.9 billion buyout, Chief Executive Officer Michael Dell and private equity firm Silver Lake Management LLC have made a paper gain of at least 90 percent on their investment, two people with knowledge of the matter said."
This happenned because Dell is focused on the LONG-TERM and not on appeasing Wall Street hacks who only care about your next Quarters financials.
Wish Apple could exit out of the bull shit of Wall Street also.
O puhlease buy a clue. Private companies do not have the financial reporting scrutiny that public ones do so it would be easy to show a "doubling" of "value" (because their buyout was low at the detriment of the shareholders who lost considerable real capitol in Mikey's "deal")
Quote from the article you linked:
"based on valuations of Hewlett-Packard Co. and other publicly traded rivals, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the details are private."
Yeah... meaning this is basically... completely baseless.
Dude... dell was the major player in the "PC" world now they are a bit player. Spin it any way you want but they are spiraling down, a long way down
Somebody takes a hit in these kind of situations, (where "value" is seeming -magically- generated) in the dell privatization deal it was the common shareholders, in this one it is likely to be the employees.
Real value growth comes from creating something efficiently and selling it (for significantly more than the total cost to create it.) Financial nor "market share" Hocus Pocus does not (equal real value growth).
The company is not eponymous, Michael Dell is eponymous.
The definition of the word allows for either. A person who gives his name to a thing (in this case a company) or the thing that has been given the name.
I'm curious to see what Q4 will look like. There was little to no new hardware in Q3 and Skylake is releasing now.
Acer's offerings have been looking quite poor for years, I'm surprised they're still around.
ASUS still has some interesting devices from time to time. Of course, their components (motherboards/graphics cards/etc.) are generally well received.
As for Dell, they've just announced their new line of premium Skylake devices. Building off the success of their early-2015 XPS 13, their new devices all use their near bezel-less design, light weight materials such as aluminum/carbon fiber and they use new technologies, such as Thunderbolt 3 ports. By the looks of it, they haven't exactly given up on the premium market.
Who's going to buy this now that Microsoft has the Surface Book coming out? Microsoft fanboys surely will buy Surface Pro or Surface Book and everyone else will buy based on price. And based on the laptops I see in my office (Fortune 20 company) corporations aren't going to be snatching these up either. Who are these for?
Companies value go up and down all the time. Look at Yahoo, Microsoft. Bottom line is most agree that Dell has got up tremedously in value since they went private. That cannot be denied.
Companies "value" go up and down all the time. Look at Yahoo, Microsoft. Bottom line is most agree that Dell has got up tremedously in "value" since they went private. That cannot be denied.
there I (sorta) fixed it for ya ;-)
And yes, dell's almost doubling in real value can easily be denied. That "increase" is all smoke and mirrors. Since dell hasn't improved it's real position much (if at all) that "value" doubling came as a result of the clever fleecing of shareholders.
That may be true. But I'm sure there is a significant population of people who only have $650 to pay for a phone and 16GB is out of the question. Because of this they may turn to an 'premium' Android phone that starts at 32GB.
My point is if Apple started at 32GB they would sell more units and capture more market share. But they would be sacrificing short-term profits. But long-term they will win, because once people own an iPhone they rarely go back to Android.
If someone has only $650 to pay for a phone, they have a choice between the 6S with 16GB or the 6 with 64GB, and this might point to the real reason Apple sells a 16GB model.
The difference in performance (faster processor, double DRAM), camera, and other capabilities (3D Touch, faster Touch ID, etc) between the 6S and the 6 is significant. So Apple is saying you cannot have both adequate storage AND all these new capabilities and performance for merely $100 more. If you want the new capabilities and you want to be relieved of the worry about minimal storage, you need to step up by $200, to both the latest model and to 64GB of storage, from the older model and 16GB of storage. Or, you can choose to step up by $100 to either adequate storage (iPhone 6 with 64GB) or to the new capabilities (iPhone 6S with 16GB). Only the $200 step up will get you both.
Providing 32GB as the base storage would change the equation sufficiently to take the decision of storage off the table, and Apple correctly wants to leave that aspect as a significant part of the purchase decision, as it places the $100 cost of the better performance and new capabilities in a favorable light, making those seem like a slam dunk value. And once you are of the mind that Apple is selling you something of real value for cheap money, you don't so much mind reciprocating on the cost of the storage bump.
For those able to see the big picture, the combined value of more storage and new capabilities and performance, for $200, seems like a pretty good deal. And both add to the resale value, so, again, those who see the big picture, also factor that into the equation. Oh, and there's more. You get free OS upgrades and a free suite of both Apple's office apps and life apps, both of which are also upgraded free for as long as your device can support the newer versions. It's really quite a good deal, once you think it through, quibbles aside.
As to Apple's motivation, it's not so much quarterly revenue and profit goals as it is just good business, presenting your products in a way that is simple to understand, provides customers clear trade-offs, and maximizes revenues and profits overall, without regard to what quarter they fall under.
Comments
Cook is trying to do both. But unfortunately that is impossible. I hope they get more customer oriented in the next few releases.
1. iPhone7 - please start at 32GB
2. AppleTV 5 - please have 4k and uncompressed audio. And please close the deal on the TV package.
3. AppleMusic - drop the price to $5 single user, $10 family plan. Clean up the interface and bugs.
4. Mac - give us a more compelling base model for the iMac, MacMini, and MacBook. The base models are way too weak.
That's your opinion. In my opinion it is possible as long as the stock is extremely undervalued.
For a good number of users 16Gb is perfectly adequate. I'm one of them. It is a frigging phone with a few apps. That's it.
So exactly why do I need any more than 16Gb?
But hey, that's my Opinion so it don't count.
sorry but this is nonsense. you have no knowledge the market is reponsible for the ATV not doing the things you want it to . the A9 chip is likely supply constrained for the phones. 4k is not yet mainstream so they does not to support it, just like they did NFC before that and LTE before that.
I imagine the reason there is a 16GB iPhone is because there is demand for one. I know lots of people who have iPhones and get by on the built in apps and nothing else.
Good for Dell. Shows you what taking your company 'private' can do... Apple could take this road as well.
I'd love if Apple had the ability to go private. Sadly they are too big now. Stock market is evil.
Either the strategy is right or it's not. And if it's not a good CEO would be able to explain to Wall Street and shareholders why it's not. Since 2012 Wall Street has been obsessed with this idea that Apple needs to sell a cheap phone for emerging markets. So far Apple has said no we don't agree and wer're not doing it. Apple's belief is there is no loyalty in the Android space and they will capture people as they move up the socioeconomic ladder. That's why Tim Cook often talks about the growing middle class in China. If a company believes in what they're doing a good CEO can sell that to Wall Street.
As far as the 16GB models I think that's mostly a function of Phil Schiller and the marketing department's obsession with the upsell. If you look at the messy iPad lineup it really seems to revolve around marketing's need to have product at a specific price point and a way to upsell you. I personally would like to see Apple move away from that business model but so long as Schiller is running marketing I don't think they will.
I'm sure there were a lot of 32GB owners that didn't need more than that yet Apple decided to give them 32GB more at no additional cost. Why (yes this is a rhetorical question)?
No way on earth does this acquisition happen if they were still a public company.
Absolute nonsense.
Btw, the deal will keep EMC public, and as a result, Dell is going to become quasi-public as well. You really should read up on how this merger has been structured. If anything, this is starting the process of Dell taking itself back to being public.
I am afraid that is even worse nonsense.
The 'evil' stock market has paid for a lot of retirements, college educations, house-builds, car purchases, and pretty much funded every non-profit out there including hospitals and colleges. It has resulted in trillions in charitable donations. Not to mention trillions in taxes to the government.
The only people who think the stock market is evil are sad class warriors.
2 + 2 - 1 = 3.
The -1 are layoffs.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
Absolute nonsense.
Btw, the deal will keep EMC public, and as a result, Dell is going to become quasi-public as well. You really should read up on how this merger has been structured. If anything, this is starting the process of Dell taking itself back to being public.
Is EMC still going to be publicly traded? I know VMWare is.
There will be a tracking stock whose value will depend on the 19% that is publicly traded (Dell is buying 81%). Since Dell will be the owner, they will also have to file 10Qs, 10Ks, etc. I predict that it will be a matter of time before Dell itself starts to trade as a 'pink sheet', and Dell re-IPOs its stock.
One could speculate that would be how Dell gets his money back before his business goes down the drain.
Intel reports tomorrow. IDC/Gartner guesses predict a pretty bad quarter for PC sales. It will be interesting to see what Intel reports. It's funny how when Satya Nadella took over at Microsoft he got rid of the whole "devices & services" mantra yet he seems to be doubling down on that. Perhaps Surface Book was in the pipeline before he took over but he could have killed it if he wanted. My guess is Microsoft knows companies like Dell and HP are moving more into enterprise services and they don't care about the smaller players like Acer and Asus (according to re/code the Asus chairman was none too pleased that Microsoft announced a laptop).
Microsoft is basically saying we want to own the premium segment. Companies like Dell, HP and Lenovo can just focus on enterprise sales. What's left is the low margin cheap consumer segment and I don't see many companies surviving on that. My guess is companies like Asus and Acer won't be around much longer or will get snatched up by someone else.
I'm curious to see what Q4 will look like. There was little to no new hardware in Q3 and Skylake is releasing now.
Acer's offerings have been looking quite poor for years, I'm surprised they're still around.
ASUS still has some interesting devices from time to time. Of course, their components (motherboards/graphics cards/etc.) are generally well received.
As for Dell, they've just announced their new line of premium Skylake devices. Building off the success of their early-2015 XPS 13, their new devices all use their near bezel-less design, light weight materials such as aluminum/carbon fiber and they use new technologies, such as Thunderbolt 3 ports. By the looks of it, they haven't exactly given up on the premium market.
XPS 12:
XPS 13:
XPS 15:
Dell's worth has gone up 90% one year after they went private.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-06/dell-silver-lake-said-to-reap-90-gain-a-year-after-lbo
"A year after taking Dell Inc. private in a $24.9 billion buyout, Chief Executive Officer Michael Dell and private equity firm Silver Lake Management LLC have made a paper gain of at least 90 percent on their investment, two people with knowledge of the matter said."
This happenned because Dell is focused on the LONG-TERM and not on appeasing Wall Street hacks who only care about your next Quarters financials.
Wish Apple could exit out of the bull shit of Wall Street also.
O puhlease buy a clue. Private companies do not have the financial reporting scrutiny that public ones do so it would be easy to show a "doubling" of "value" (because their buyout was low at the detriment of the shareholders who lost considerable real capitol in Mikey's "deal")
Quote from the article you linked:
"based on valuations of Hewlett-Packard Co. and other publicly traded rivals, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the details are private."
Yeah... meaning this is basically... completely baseless.
Dude... dell was the major player in the "PC" world now they are a bit player. Spin it any way you want but they are spiraling down, a long way down
2 + 2 - 1 = 3.
The -1 are layoffs.
Spot on.
Somebody takes a hit in these kind of situations, (where "value" is seeming -magically- generated) in the dell privatization deal it was the common shareholders, in this one it is likely to be the employees.
Real value growth comes from creating something efficiently and selling it (for significantly more than the total cost to create it.) Financial nor "market share" Hocus Pocus does not (equal real value growth).
The company is not eponymous, Michael Dell is eponymous.
The definition of the word allows for either. A person who gives his name to a thing (in this case a company) or the thing that has been given the name.
Who's going to buy this now that Microsoft has the Surface Book coming out? Microsoft fanboys surely will buy Surface Pro or Surface Book and everyone else will buy based on price. And based on the laptops I see in my office (Fortune 20 company) corporations aren't going to be snatching these up either. Who are these for?
Dell's value is up 90%
Go pooh pooh all you want.
Companies value go up and down all the time. Look at Yahoo, Microsoft. Bottom line is most agree that Dell has got up tremedously in value since they went private. That cannot be denied.
Companies "value" go up and down all the time. Look at Yahoo, Microsoft. Bottom line is most agree that Dell has got up tremedously in "value" since they went private. That cannot be denied.
there I (sorta) fixed it for ya ;-)
And yes, dell's almost doubling in real value can easily be denied. That "increase" is all smoke and mirrors. Since dell hasn't improved it's real position much (if at all) that "value" doubling came as a result of the clever fleecing of shareholders.
That may be true. But I'm sure there is a significant population of people who only have $650 to pay for a phone and 16GB is out of the question. Because of this they may turn to an 'premium' Android phone that starts at 32GB.
My point is if Apple started at 32GB they would sell more units and capture more market share. But they would be sacrificing short-term profits. But long-term they will win, because once people own an iPhone they rarely go back to Android.
If someone has only $650 to pay for a phone, they have a choice between the 6S with 16GB or the 6 with 64GB, and this might point to the real reason Apple sells a 16GB model.
The difference in performance (faster processor, double DRAM), camera, and other capabilities (3D Touch, faster Touch ID, etc) between the 6S and the 6 is significant. So Apple is saying you cannot have both adequate storage AND all these new capabilities and performance for merely $100 more. If you want the new capabilities and you want to be relieved of the worry about minimal storage, you need to step up by $200, to both the latest model and to 64GB of storage, from the older model and 16GB of storage. Or, you can choose to step up by $100 to either adequate storage (iPhone 6 with 64GB) or to the new capabilities (iPhone 6S with 16GB). Only the $200 step up will get you both.
Providing 32GB as the base storage would change the equation sufficiently to take the decision of storage off the table, and Apple correctly wants to leave that aspect as a significant part of the purchase decision, as it places the $100 cost of the better performance and new capabilities in a favorable light, making those seem like a slam dunk value. And once you are of the mind that Apple is selling you something of real value for cheap money, you don't so much mind reciprocating on the cost of the storage bump.
For those able to see the big picture, the combined value of more storage and new capabilities and performance, for $200, seems like a pretty good deal. And both add to the resale value, so, again, those who see the big picture, also factor that into the equation. Oh, and there's more. You get free OS upgrades and a free suite of both Apple's office apps and life apps, both of which are also upgraded free for as long as your device can support the newer versions. It's really quite a good deal, once you think it through, quibbles aside.
As to Apple's motivation, it's not so much quarterly revenue and profit goals as it is just good business, presenting your products in a way that is simple to understand, provides customers clear trade-offs, and maximizes revenues and profits overall, without regard to what quarter they fall under.