He's positive when Apple stock is doing well. Go back to 2013 when he was constantly complaining about Tim Cook.
Almost everyone (except Apple fans) was dumping on Cook then.
Cramer has been surprisingly positive in the past few months despite AAPL sliding from $135 to $105. Indeed, I am guessing that's why it was no accident that Tim Cook got on the phone with him about sales in China. (That call, btw, put a floor on the AAPL carnage in late August).
Yea and a lot of good that did. As soon as Katy Huberty and others started sounding the D&G over their supply chain "checks" in Asia whatever Tim said in August meant nothing anymore. At some point there's nothing more Tim can say if the day traders choose to believe supply chain chatter over Apple's CEO. Here's a question I have though: if the December quarter was going to be bad and March guidance was going to be soft wouldn't Apple have filed revised guidance with the SEC by now?
I have never been an "Apple is doomed" person, but with the latest move by AT&T to remove subsidies (and Verizon is sure to follow), I am worried about long-term iPhone sales. I, an avowed device nerd/geek who has been on iPhones the 3G, and Windows Mobile and Palm Pilots before that, am actually considering ending my addiction and going back to a flip phone because I am disgusted by the cost (when my cellular bill + device lease payment rivals my car payment, it gives me pause). I know there are many customers who are already on these newer non-subsidy plans, but I have to believe a significant chunk of the population will be mad enough to just walk away now, or when the next shoe drops. I think this is built into the stock price and is also part of the reason it is undervalued, compared to other companies who can control their own destinies.
No, to preemtively answer sog35, I have not compared to valuations for other phone manufacturers. This is just something that seems like a substantial, inevitable hit to the biggest part of Apple's business; and if I were an investor, it would scare me and make the stock less valuable to me.
Betting on the fact people are cheapskates? Probably not a bad bet
I am long on Apple stock but I understand the risk, that Apple's #1 product, the iPhone, could go the way of the iPad. Sales could decline YOY for several years in a row or collapse a la Blackberry.
Do I think that's going to happen? No. However, it's possible. You have Xiaomi making elegant phones for way less money. You have Apple dependent on this one product category, the iPhone, for a huge percent of its revenue. There are real fears beyond the bullshit panic of opportunistic analysts.
But then, if you don't want any risk, don't invest in stocks, especially not tech stocks. The whole field is just very fluid. Revolutions happen all the time. Yesterday's kings are tomorrow's has-beens.
I personally think that Apple is in great shape to take on whatever challenge reality throws at the company. They have the war chest, the talent, the culture, and the fans.
I am long on Apple stock but I understand the risk, that Apple's #1 product, the iPhone, could go the way of the iPad. Sales could decline YOY for several years in a row or collapse a la Blackberry.
Do I think that's going to happen? No. However, it's possible. You have Xiaomi making elegant phones for way less money. You have Apple dependent on this one product category, the iPhone, for a huge percent of its revenue. There are real fears beyond the bullshit panic of opportunistic analysts.
But then, if you don't want any risk, don't invest in stocks, especially not tech stocks. The whole field is just very fluid. Revolutions happen all the time. Yesterday's kings are tomorrow's has-beens.
I personally think that Apple is in great shape to take on whatever challenge reality throws at the company. They have the war chest, the talent, the culture, and the fans.
I'm long on the stock for that reason.
That is a pretty balanced commentary - I am also very long AAPL - not as positive as you are on the talent and culture part though. A little over three weeks to the quarterly earnings / guidance and we will all know a bit more.
I have faith in Apple, long term. This year, I was not bedazzled by their products and felt like they were just throwing people small bones to hold them over for the real snazzy intros coming this year.
iPhone 7 - hopefully LOOKS different. Every single atom in the new iPhone 6(+) was different yet it looked like last year's model. Blech.... don't repeat this, Apple.
iPad Air - going a bit long on new stuff. This is the main bread and butter iPad. Should have the latest tech.
iPad Pro - this was great.
iCloud - Amp up the FREE allotment so we all get hooked. It's not about a revenue generator but stickiness.
iPhone 7 and new MacBook Pros have to WOW us this year, with no compromise. There were a few years with Steve Jobs where every keynote I'd say, "Yeah but..."
Remember those frustrating, strange products that would be great, but they'd have some old tech in them that made us go....crap. Like the 33K modems in the new iMacs when everyone else was flying at 56K.
I just read that Motorola has unbreakable glass..wtf...why doesn't Apple have this?
Where Apple shines and gives me goosebumps.... the Ax technology. No complaints there.
So Apple.....let's finally get rid of the 16GB tier!!!!!!!!! For the love of god.
And get rid of the headphone jack..... I was listening to the Crocodile Rock with those. Time to amp it up.
Get rid of that chin on the iMac while you're at it.
2016 should feel like a massive refresh. We ain't there yet and haven't seen it in a while.
iWatch...who cares until it's its own animal, not tethered to an iPhone.
* Make the iPhone phone work really well. This is the one thing it sucks at. Could probably blame the carriers here.
There are some sore losers here (not financially) who are complaining about goosing the stock (or lack thereof). I don't want to see this start. I like Apple's long term view.
Still, Tim.... drink some Monster Bull or something before you go onstage. I'm not feeling ya.....
iPhone 7 - hopefully LOOKS different. Every single atom in the new iPhone 6(+) was different yet it looked like last year's model. Blech.... don't repeat this, Apple.
Do you not get what Apple does with their phones?
iCloud - Amp up the FREE allotment so we all get hooked. It's not about a revenue generator but stickiness.
Know what I’d love? I’d love to use iCloud as a “throughput” service rather than an endpoint service.
I want to see a little cloud badge on folders or files on my Macs that I select. With that badge there, any changes made to those files and folders would be synced across the cloud to all my Macs. If the folder didn’t exist on one, it and all folders further up in the relevant folder tree would be created.
So basically the inverse of what Steve had at NeXT that he outlined at WWDC 1996 (and which thousands of companies use all over the world). Instead of a single server-based group of files, accessible from any dumb terminal, I want my personal terminals to have the files and the server to sync them as I make changes.
Oh, and if iCloud Drive could let me make changes to the way I view documents stored there, that’d be great. I’m not making an entirely separate copy of the files I want up there just because the text size is too small and unchangeable.
I just read that Motorola has unbreakable glass..wtf...why doesn't Apple have this?
Because no glass is unbreakable.
iWatch...who cares until it's its own animal, not tethered to an iPhone.
I feel the same way. That and it would have to have its own real reason for being for me to want one. Right now it’s just an “I’m literally too lazy to pull my phone from my pocket” product.
Still, Tim.... drink some Monster Bull or something before you go onstage. I'm not feeling ya.....
Or just stay off entirely. Let Craig handle it. He even kids around.
Well - I'd say they both matter. Many long term shareholders are quite frustrated that our 3 year+ returns have been so poor. The 2% dividend is a joke given the mountain of cash that Apple is sitting on and less than 2% capital appreciation - a disaster given the $100,000,000,000+ that Apple has wasted on totally ineffective buybacks.
That is the source of much (though not all by any means) of the biting commentary on Cook.
Apple needs a completely new IR team, and a radically different messaging strategy when it comes to major market moves.
Right now, both are frustratingly disappointing, especially given the remarkable fundamentals of the business.
Agree 100%
Either Tim Cook needs to hire some new people who can articulate Apples vision and counter Wall street FUD or he needs to resign.
2015 was the most profitable year for any company in the history of man. Yet the stock is down 5% for the year. The main reason is because Cook failed to control the message of the company. The entire investing community views Apple as a one trick pony with a trick that has peaked. This is so far from the truth. Apple has so many current and future revenue streams to easily double revenue from this point. But Cook has failed at convincing Wall Street that iPad, Watch, AppleTV, ApplePay, Apple Car, Beats, Apple Music, ect have a bright future and can add hundreds of billions in future revenue.
Amazon CEO was able to convince Wall Street that Cloud services would be huge. But Amazon cloud generates less than $1 billion in profit. Apple Watch profits dwarf Amazon cloud. But Cook refuses to release Watch figures so Wall street gives Watch zero credit.
Something is wrong with Apple's investor relations. I can't even speak to a live person. I call the number and all you can do is leave a message. I left 3 messages and no one called back. I mean what the fuck. I have tens of thousands invested and they can't even return a fucking phone call?
Wall Street totally disrespects Tim Cook and pisses on his face. Various analysist have flatout called Tim Cook a liar and a cheat. Other said he was breaking SEC rules and manipulating numbers. WTF. You never hear this kind of shit directed at Google/Amazon/Microsoft CEO. Only Cook. Whatever he is doing, he is doing it wrong.
It's quite evident that you don't know how the stock market works or what drives it. Before I get to that, let's do some fact checking: I don't know where the 'most profitable year' claim is coming from. Apple doesn't even enter the top 10 in revenue, and in profit it's not beating Fanny Mae's earnings. Adjusting for inflation, it's not beating some of Microsoft's or IBM's ridiculous earnings and it's got a long, long way to go before it beats the largest-ever market caps of Intel, Cisco, Microsoft GE or the trillion-dollar beating Petrochina and Standard Oil. If you want as further laugh, look at the market caps for history's biggest companies: the Dutch East India Trading Co. owned a substantial chunk of the world's economy and commanded an adjusted cap exceeding $7 trillion. I assume they count as being within 'the history of man'?
I'm not saying that apple are under-performing or somehow crappy because they are not the top, but let's get some backed up sources before we mindlessly claim lies on the internet.
On releasing watch sales, it's pretty common for conglomerates to pick and chose what statistics not to display or shovel under the rug. They're not always bad, not always good and are usually done to avoid creating false expectations. Tom Cook has claimed it's so Apple doesn't give competitors insight into their numbers, and I suppose that's all anyone will get on the matter until Apple does decide to give more accurate statistics. It's possible, and my personal guess, that they're doing the watch as a market test - they don't want to release sales statistics as they'll set precedent, and they don't want to set estimates as it's quite a potentially turbulent market.
This ties in with what you don't seem to understand about what drives the values of stocks and shares - they're not just about profit. It's a factor, sure, but not really the deciding factor in what they go for. The actual price of a stock you purchase is dictated by a combination of the EPS and the valuation multiple. You can calculate the EPS fairly easily - if you're invested in Apple as you claim, you've got a copy of the 10-k and you can find it on page 22 and see it for yourself. Figure out the P/E ratio, and from that you're bang on with what Apple's stock is currently at, plus or minus the fluctuation on a daily basis.
...Or just stay off entirely. Let Craig handle it. He even kids around. ...
I agree - Craig tends to catch my attention when he speaks. Cook is a disaster on stage and Cue looks and sounds like a blathering slob whose time is gone.
I think Apple should buy Box and get a step ahead in cloud.
Thankfully, you're not in charge because that's a terrible idea.
Your reaction just shows you're interested in short term gains from AAPL. Tim Cook, just like Steve Jobs, does not care about the short term stock price. Not evenover the course of a year. Instead of expecting Apple to change how it has always managed its stock, you should never have invested in the stock because they've always handled it exactly how they're handling it now.
To paraphrase George Constanza, it's not them. It's you.
if you buy AAPL today, it will very likely outperform the market over the next 3+ years. That's called investing.
Have to agree with you. Apple is unlikely to go bust due to a falling share price because they're still making money hand over fist. They're also unlikely to listen to the short-term crybabies begging them to buy any old company in the hope it appeases Wall Street for two minutes. The day Apple allows worries about the share price to dictate who runs the company then they might as well fold. Let the share price tank; Apple will pick them up for cheap as the whiners lose their nerve.
Either Tim Cook needs to hire some new people who can articulate Apples vision and counter Wall street FUD or he needs to resign.
2015 was the most profitable year for any company in the history of man. Yet the stock is down 5% for the year. The main reason is because Cook failed to control the message of the company. The entire investing community views Apple as a one trick pony with a trick that has peaked. This is so far from the truth. Apple has so many current and future revenue streams to easily double revenue from this point. But Cook has failed at convincing Wall Street that iPad, Watch, AppleTV, ApplePay, Apple Car, Beats, Apple Music, ect have a bright future and can add hundreds of billions in future revenue.
Amazon CEO was able to convince Wall Street that Cloud services would be huge. But Amazon cloud generates less than $1 billion in profit. Apple Watch profits dwarf Amazon cloud. But Cook refuses to release Watch figures so Wall street gives Watch zero credit.
Something is wrong with Apple's investor relations. I can't even speak to a live person. I call the number and all you can do is leave a message. I left 3 messages and no one called back. I mean what the fuck. I have tens of thousands invested and they can't even return a fucking phone call?
Wall Street totally disrespects Tim Cook and pisses on his face. Various analysist have flatout called Tim Cook a liar and a cheat. Other said he was breaking SEC rules and manipulating numbers. WTF. You never hear this kind of shit directed at Google/Amazon/Microsoft CEO. Only Cook. Whatever he is doing, he is doing it wrong.
It's quite evident that you don't know how the stock market works or what drives it. Before I get to that, let's do some fact checking: I don't know where the 'most profitable year' claim is coming from. Apple doesn't even enter the top 10 in revenue, and in profit it's not beating Fanny Mae's earnings. Adjusting for inflation, it's not beating some of Microsoft's or IBM's ridiculous earnings and it's got a long, long way to go before it beats the largest-ever market caps of Intel, Cisco, Microsoft GE or the trillion-dollar beating Petrochina and Standard Oil. If you want as further laugh, look at the market caps for history's biggest companies: the Dutch East India Trading Co. owned a substantial chunk of the world's economy and commanded an adjusted cap exceeding $7 trillion. I assume they count as being within 'the history of man'?
I'm not saying that apple are under-performing or somehow crappy because they are not the top, but let's get some backed up sources before we mindlessly claim lies on the internet.
On releasing watch sales, it's pretty common for conglomerates to pick and chose what statistics not to display or shovel under the rug. They're not always bad, not always good and are usually done to avoid creating false expectations. Tom Cook has claimed it's so Apple doesn't give competitors insight into their numbers, and I suppose that's all anyone will get on the matter until Apple does decide to give more accurate statistics. It's possible, and my personal guess, that they're doing the watch as a market test - they don't want to release sales statistics as they'll set precedent, and they don't want to set estimates as it's quite a potentially turbulent market.
This ties in with what you don't seem to understand about what drives the values of stocks and shares - they're not just about profit. It's a factor, sure, but not really the deciding factor in what they go for. The actual price of a stock you purchase is dictated by a combination of the EPS and the valuation multiple. You can calculate the EPS fairly easily - if you're invested in Apple as you claim, you've got a copy of the 10-k and you can find it on page 22 and see it for yourself. Figure out the P/E ratio, and from that you're bang on with what Apple's stock is currently at, plus or minus the fluctuation on a daily basis.
OK - as you have set your self up as the one who understands "...what drives the values of stocks and shares...", please take your premise about P/E and multiples and, for a starter, discuss how that explains Amazon's capital appreciation.
Now, how about an explanation of TSLA P/E and multiple vis a vis their share price?
I am long on Apple stock but I understand the risk, that Apple's #1 product, the iPhone, could go the way of the iPad. Sales could decline YOY for several years in a row or collapse a la Blackberry.
Do I think that's going to happen? No. However, it's possible. You have Xiaomi making elegant phones for way less money. You have Apple dependent on this one product category, the iPhone, for a huge percent of its revenue. There are real fears beyond the bullshit panic of opportunistic analysts.
But then, if you don't want any risk, don't invest in stocks, especially not tech stocks. The whole field is just very fluid. Revolutions happen all the time. Yesterday's kings are tomorrow's has-beens.
I personally think that Apple is in great shape to take on whatever challenge reality throws at the company. They have the war chest, the talent, the culture, and the fans.
I'm long on the stock for that reason.
That is a pretty balanced commentary - I am also very long AAPL - not as positive as you are on the talent and culture part though. A little over three weeks to the quarterly earnings / guidance and we will all know a bit more.
Put it this way, does anyone else have the talent? No current player does, and any new player will take at least 10 years to make any inroads against Apple.
It's quite evident that you don't know how the stock market works or what drives it. Before I get to that, let's do some fact checking: I don't know where the 'most profitable year' claim is coming from. Apple doesn't even enter the top 10 in revenue, and in profit it's not beating Fanny Mae's earnings. Adjusting for inflation, it's not beating some of Microsoft's or IBM's ridiculous earnings and it's got a long, long way to go before it beats the largest-ever market caps of Intel, Cisco, Microsoft GE or the trillion-dollar beating Petrochina and Standard Oil. If you want as further laugh, look at the market caps for history's biggest companies: the Dutch East India Trading Co. owned a substantial chunk of the world's economy and commanded an adjusted cap exceeding $7 trillion. I assume they count as being within 'the history of man'?
I'm not saying that apple are under-performing or somehow crappy because they are not the top, but let's get some backed up sources before we mindlessly claim lies on the internet.
On releasing watch sales, it's pretty common for conglomerates to pick and chose what statistics not to display or shovel under the rug. They're not always bad, not always good and are usually done to avoid creating false expectations. Tom Cook has claimed it's so Apple doesn't give competitors insight into their numbers, and I suppose that's all anyone will get on the matter until Apple does decide to give more accurate statistics. It's possible, and my personal guess, that they're doing the watch as a market test - they don't want to release sales statistics as they'll set precedent, and they don't want to set estimates as it's quite a potentially turbulent market.
This ties in with what you don't seem to understand about what drives the values of stocks and shares - they're not just about profit. It's a factor, sure, but not really the deciding factor in what they go for. The actual price of a stock you purchase is dictated by a combination of the EPS and the valuation multiple. You can calculate the EPS fairly easily - if you're invested in Apple as you claim, you've got a copy of the 10-k and you can find it on page 22 and see it for yourself. Figure out the P/E ratio, and from that you're bang on with what Apple's stock is currently at, plus or minus the fluctuation on a daily basis.
OK - as you have set your self up as the one who understands "...what drives the values of stocks and shares...", please take your premise about P/E and multiples and, for a starter, discuss how that explains Amazon's capital appreciation.
Now, how about an explanation of TSLA P/E and multiple vis a vis their share price?
Taking the mean of estimations for AMZN, we're at ($0 + $755) / (1 + 11.8%) = $675 or thereabouts, their current stock price give or take the cents. AMZN's still a good buy in the eyes of most analysts, but there are some out there who think it's quite overvalued. Rather than me regurgitate information at you, the majority of 'why' discussion can be found here. Basically boils down to better than expected results and extrapolation of previous growth.
I'm not familiar with Tesla, I don't heavily invest in them.
OK - as you have set your self up as the one who understands "...what drives the values of stocks and shares...", please take your premise about P/E and multiples and, for a starter, discuss how that explains Amazon's capital appreciation.
Now, how about an explanation of TSLA P/E and multiple vis a vis their share price?
Taking the mean of estimations for AMZN, we're at ($0 + $755) / (1 + 11.8%) = $675 or thereabouts, their current stock price give or take the cents. AMZN's still a good buy in the eyes of most analysts, but there are some out there who think it's quite overvalued. Rather than me regurgitate information at you, the majority of 'why' discussion can be found here. Basically boils down to better than expected results and extrapolation of previous growth.
I'm not familiar with Tesla, I don't heavily invest in them.
I'm not following your explanation at all. Amazon has virtually no earnings, thus virtually no EPS, thus a meaningless multiple (currently around 1800) - yet trades at $675.
AAPL numbers are waaaaay better - EPS of $9.58 (current multiple of 11) yet the stock has been a dog for over 3 years.
Your explanation of what drives stock value is making no sense.
That is a pretty balanced commentary - I am also very long AAPL - not as positive as you are on the talent and culture part though. A little over three weeks to the quarterly earnings / guidance and we will all know a bit more.
Put it this way, does anyone else have the talent? No current player does, and any new player will take at least 10 years to make any inroads against Apple.
That is a pretty balanced commentary - I am also very long AAPL - not as positive as you are on the talent and culture part though. A little over three weeks to the quarterly earnings / guidance and we will all know a bit more.
Put it this way, does anyone else have the talent? No current player does, and any new player will take at least 10 years to make any inroads against Apple.
Well, for one, the huge video / movie streaming negotiations should be at the CEO level as opposed to Cue. Not sure that Cook would have pulled it off but it clearly needed more chops than Cue. The CEO of Netflix appears to know how to get it done.
Almost everyone (except Apple fans) was dumping on Cook then.
Cramer has been surprisingly positive in the past few months despite AAPL sliding from $135 to $105. Indeed, I am guessing that's why it was no accident that Tim Cook got on the phone with him about sales in China. (That call, btw, put a floor on the AAPL carnage in late August).
Yea and a lot of good that did. As soon as Katy Huberty and others started sounding the D&G over their supply chain "checks" in Asia whatever Tim said in August meant nothing anymore. At some point there's nothing more Tim can say if the day traders choose to believe supply chain chatter over Apple's CEO. Here's a question I have though: if the December quarter was going to be bad and March guidance was going to be soft wouldn't Apple have filed revised guidance with the SEC by now?
Apple only needs to go by their own guidance numbers on how they're going to do in the quarter, not what Wall St. expects Apple should do. Thus knowing that they're going to miss Wall St. whisper numbers is not a reason to revise their guidance, so long as they are within reason of their own guidance numbers. That's why Apple guidance is always on the conservative side. Even if they don't meet or beat Wall St. numbers, they nearly always meet or beat their own guidance numbers. But that don't count on Wall St..
Wall St. has gotten wise to Apple conservative guidance numbers. Back in the days of Steve jobs (after his return) Apple would conservatively guide sales of 25 million, Wall St. whisper number would be 26 Million and Apple would announce sales of 26.5 million, AAPL goes up. Well, Wall St. eventually got wise to that, so now if Apple guide sales of 25 million, Wall St whisper number would be 27 million and when Apple announces sales of 26.5 million, AAPL goes down.
Which is frustrating when you consider that if Amazon announced that they only lost $400 million in the last quarter, but Wall ST expected Amazon to lose $500 million, AMZN would shoot up by over 10%.
Comments
Happy to see him gone, if that holds.
Maybe MacRumors will be the new penalty box for AI miscreants.
Do I think that's going to happen? No. However, it's possible. You have Xiaomi making elegant phones for way less money. You have Apple dependent on this one product category, the iPhone, for a huge percent of its revenue. There are real fears beyond the bullshit panic of opportunistic analysts.
But then, if you don't want any risk, don't invest in stocks, especially not tech stocks. The whole field is just very fluid. Revolutions happen all the time. Yesterday's kings are tomorrow's has-beens.
I personally think that Apple is in great shape to take on whatever challenge reality throws at the company. They have the war chest, the talent, the culture, and the fans.
I'm long on the stock for that reason.
iPhone 7 - hopefully LOOKS different. Every single atom in the new iPhone 6(+) was different yet it looked like last year's model. Blech.... don't repeat this, Apple.
iPad Air - going a bit long on new stuff. This is the main bread and butter iPad. Should have the latest tech.
iPad Pro - this was great.
iCloud - Amp up the FREE allotment so we all get hooked. It's not about a revenue generator but stickiness.
iPhone 7 and new MacBook Pros have to WOW us this year, with no compromise. There were a few years with Steve Jobs where every keynote I'd say, "Yeah but..."
Remember those frustrating, strange products that would be great, but they'd have some old tech in them that made us go....crap. Like the 33K modems in the new iMacs when everyone else was flying at 56K.
I just read that Motorola has unbreakable glass..wtf...why doesn't Apple have this?
Where Apple shines and gives me goosebumps.... the Ax technology. No complaints there.
So Apple.....let's finally get rid of the 16GB tier!!!!!!!!! For the love of god.
And get rid of the headphone jack..... I was listening to the Crocodile Rock with those. Time to amp it up.
Get rid of that chin on the iMac while you're at it.
2016 should feel like a massive refresh. We ain't there yet and haven't seen it in a while.
iWatch...who cares until it's its own animal, not tethered to an iPhone.
* Make the iPhone phone work really well. This is the one thing it sucks at. Could probably blame the carriers here.
There are some sore losers here (not financially) who are complaining about goosing the stock (or lack thereof). I don't want to see this start. I like Apple's long term view.
Still, Tim.... drink some Monster Bull or something before you go onstage. I'm not feeling ya.....
Know what I’d love? I’d love to use iCloud as a “throughput” service rather than an endpoint service.
I want to see a little cloud badge on folders or files on my Macs that I select. With that badge there, any changes made to those files and folders would be synced across the cloud to all my Macs. If the folder didn’t exist on one, it and all folders further up in the relevant folder tree would be created.
So basically the inverse of what Steve had at NeXT that he outlined at WWDC 1996 (and which thousands of companies use all over the world). Instead of a single server-based group of files, accessible from any dumb terminal, I want my personal terminals to have the files and the server to sync them as I make changes.
Oh, and if iCloud Drive could let me make changes to the way I view documents stored there, that’d be great. I’m not making an entirely separate copy of the files I want up there just because the text size is too small and unchangeable.
Because no glass is unbreakable.
I feel the same way. That and it would have to have its own real reason for being for me to want one. Right now it’s just an “I’m literally too lazy to pull my phone from my pocket” product.
Or just stay off entirely. Let Craig handle it. He even kids around.
That is the source of much (though not all by any means) of the biting commentary on Cook.
It's quite evident that you don't know how the stock market works or what drives it. Before I get to that, let's do some fact checking: I don't know where the 'most profitable year' claim is coming from. Apple doesn't even enter the top 10 in revenue, and in profit it's not beating Fanny Mae's earnings. Adjusting for inflation, it's not beating some of Microsoft's or IBM's ridiculous earnings and it's got a long, long way to go before it beats the largest-ever market caps of Intel, Cisco, Microsoft GE or the trillion-dollar beating Petrochina and Standard Oil. If you want as further laugh, look at the market caps for history's biggest companies: the Dutch East India Trading Co. owned a substantial chunk of the world's economy and commanded an adjusted cap exceeding $7 trillion. I assume they count as being within 'the history of man'?
I'm not saying that apple are under-performing or somehow crappy because they are not the top, but let's get some backed up sources before we mindlessly claim lies on the internet.
On releasing watch sales, it's pretty common for conglomerates to pick and chose what statistics not to display or shovel under the rug. They're not always bad, not always good and are usually done to avoid creating false expectations. Tom Cook has claimed it's so Apple doesn't give competitors insight into their numbers, and I suppose that's all anyone will get on the matter until Apple does decide to give more accurate statistics. It's possible, and my personal guess, that they're doing the watch as a market test - they don't want to release sales statistics as they'll set precedent, and they don't want to set estimates as it's quite a potentially turbulent market.
This ties in with what you don't seem to understand about what drives the values of stocks and shares - they're not just about profit. It's a factor, sure, but not really the deciding factor in what they go for. The actual price of a stock you purchase is dictated by a combination of the EPS and the valuation multiple. You can calculate the EPS fairly easily - if you're invested in Apple as you claim, you've got a copy of the 10-k and you can find it on page 22 and see it for yourself. Figure out the P/E ratio, and from that you're bang on with what Apple's stock is currently at, plus or minus the fluctuation on a daily basis.
Now, how about an explanation of TSLA P/E and multiple vis a vis their share price?
Taking the mean of estimations for AMZN, we're at ($0 + $755) / (1 + 11.8%) = $675 or thereabouts, their current stock price give or take the cents. AMZN's still a good buy in the eyes of most analysts, but there are some out there who think it's quite overvalued. Rather than me regurgitate information at you, the majority of 'why' discussion can be found here. Basically boils down to better than expected results and extrapolation of previous growth.
I'm not familiar with Tesla, I don't heavily invest in them.
And worse, trying to argue a counterfactual, out of the blue. Weird.
AAPL numbers are waaaaay better - EPS of $9.58 (current multiple of 11) yet the stock has been a dog for over 3 years.
Your explanation of what drives stock value is making no sense.
Well, for one, the huge video / movie streaming negotiations should be at the CEO level as opposed to Cue. Not sure that Cook would have pulled it off but it clearly needed more chops than Cue. The CEO of Netflix appears to know how to get it done.
Apple only needs to go by their own guidance numbers on how they're going to do in the quarter, not what Wall St. expects Apple should do. Thus knowing that they're going to miss Wall St. whisper numbers is not a reason to revise their guidance, so long as they are within reason of their own guidance numbers. That's why Apple guidance is always on the conservative side. Even if they don't meet or beat Wall St. numbers, they nearly always meet or beat their own guidance numbers. But that don't count on Wall St..
Wall St. has gotten wise to Apple conservative guidance numbers. Back in the days of Steve jobs (after his return) Apple would conservatively guide sales of 25 million, Wall St. whisper number would be 26 Million and Apple would announce sales of 26.5 million, AAPL goes up. Well, Wall St. eventually got wise to that, so now if Apple guide sales of 25 million, Wall St whisper number would be 27 million and when Apple announces sales of 26.5 million, AAPL goes down.
Which is frustrating when you consider that if Amazon announced that they only lost $400 million in the last quarter, but Wall ST expected Amazon to lose $500 million, AMZN would shoot up by over 10%.