Unfortunately, this is what happened when Henry Ford died. The vision was lost and it took Ford several decades to become relevant again. Even today, they are successful again, but nothing like they used to be.
Apple needs to change the aura of secrecy. This may have worked when Jobs was in charge but nowadays, it is hurting the stock. That being said, the FANG stocks are for sure trading in bubble territory. Amazon is completely out of control with a PE close to 1000:1. It just isn't sustainable. I work in enterprise IT and many customers flock to AWS and then realize they cant stay there forever because it is way too expensive for everyday traditional IT workloads. FB is completely useless as a platform, mainly serving middle-aged people who want to post their entire lives in the world's largest trash can. Google is a one-trick pony dependent on ad dollars. Netflix still loses money on a regular basis.
Apple will survive because the products are real. You can touch them, use them, etc. But there needs to be some more visionary stuff that people can look forward to if you want the stock to continue to grow. Right now, by the time Apple talks about something new the whole world knows about it because it already leaked. Look at the stock during one of Apple's announcements. Once some ridiculous feature is seen to not have been coming (i.e. a sapphire screen) the stock tanks during the trading day.
Secrecy is part of Apple's DNA. Putting competitors off is money in pocket and that's not going to change. It's a standard by which many successful people live by. Whether it's grandma's secret pie recipe or Tesla's battery technology, there's a reason for secrets.
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%.
I thought Apple quit with the sandbagging after Steve died and their guidance became more realistic?
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.
Umm.... if you know anything about PE ratios, you'll know that they're all about the market's perception of value-creation from growth opportunities.
So, what is Apple's PE -- standalone, relative to peers, relative to market -- and what does it tell you?
That people's fracking perceptions are demented... And PE ratio are useless to gauge anything but a short term play (since its based on perception and that drives short term variations).
The fact a company can lose money 4 year straight and get essentially the same PE as a company which had 4 straight year of record growth in all metrics, tell me they don't have a clue. It's quite easy to demonstrate they don't have a clue.
I remember a lot of BS being said just before the dot.com crash and those same argument are repeated here; verbatim.
BTW, Apple's PE has been stuck low for a long long long time, many years; if someone had actually used this fucked up perception to not buy Apple stock, they'd likely have lost a huge amount of upsid.
Finally, Are you telling me that Amazon could really get 100% of all retail in Europe and the North America despite they being less and less competitive price wise across vast sectors. That's how insane their PE is; it's dot.com era stupid..
I can order straight from China at cheaper than the sales price on Amazon! Also, their margins of cloud products are constantly falling and that won't rescue them either.
So, WTH is 1000 based on, only magic makes sense considering how unlikely those earnings will ever appear.
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.
What are you expecting exactly? Apple doesn't have the leverage they had when they negotiated with the music industry. They don't have the number one streamer, and the TV industry isn't in need of a savior.
Netflix is on every streamer, and smart TV. They have power to negotiate. Plus have you seen how many Emmy nominations they have, and if you haven't done so, you should watch Beasts of no nation.
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.
P/E is the Market Value per share over the EPS, and EPS is derived from income (minus dividends) over the weighted average number of outstanding shares. That is what drives stock prices, regardless of your opinion on what makes sense. Companies are required by law to report EPS on quarterly and annual earnings, and thus the EPS is rarely needed to be calculated. That is how stock price is calculated, and you can root through all of Apple's reported figures and get their stock price.
The P/E itself is a ratio which measures share price compared to it's per-share earnings, and a high P/E ratio is not an indication of a 'better' stock to invest in, it's just an indication of how much investors are willing to pay for a dollar of profit. It's not a magic set of tarot cards that provide a sure-fire indication of a company's future, and often high P/Es are an indication of overvaluation. What stocks you should invest in boil down to the P/E ratio and your stratagy, mostly.
Out of curiosity, what is your investing strategy? As a defensive investor, Apple's low-average P/E is what attracted me to the stock itself. What drew you to Apple (if you invest?)
I think the problem with Apple is they have overused the "premium" concept to the consumers. I have a 6s and it's a nice device, but there are other phones in the market that hardware wise are equally as nice, but they just don't run iOS. I honestly think that's the only thing iPhone has going for it, is the operating system. To some extent I would extend that same reason is why Macs are doing well.
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
IMO, Tim Cook is having some major problems as CEO. I'm really glad other people are seeing what I see. I feel he is too quiet, and doesn't give the impression of a man who wants to lead the biggest company in the world. He hasn't defended the stock, nor given the Wall Street bullshitters to look forward to, leaving them to make up some nonsense that tanks the stock. He hasn't done anything about that. Sorry for this, but, just for a moment, compare him to Steve Jobs. Imagine what Steve's reaction to this nonsense about the stock would be. He would have gone nuts on the Wall Street guys, giving the impression to the public and other investors that he has control as a CEO. Tim hasn't done anything. I feel he needs to hire a new IR/PR team ASAP, or he needs to resign and someone capable and bubbly needs to replace him. Enough is enough, Apple can't take another year like 2015.
IMO, Tim Cook is having some major problems as CEO. I'm really glad other people are seeing what I see. I feel he is too quiet, and doesn't give the impression of a man who wants to lead the biggest company in the world. He hasn't defended the stock, nor given the Wall Street bullshitters to look forward to, leaving them to make up some nonsense that tanks the stock. He hasn't done anything about that. Sorry for this, but, just for a moment, compare him to Steve Jobs. Imagine what Steve's reaction to this nonsense about the stock would be. He would have gone nuts on the Wall Street guys, giving the impression to the public and other investors that he has control as a CEO. Tim hasn't done anything. I feel he needs to hire a new IR/PR team ASAP, or he needs to resign and someone capable and bubbly needs to replace him. Enough is enough, Apple can't take another year like 2015.
And there it is...the "Steve Jobs would never have allowed that" argument. Steve Jobs was more dismissal of Wall Street and Apple's stock price than anyone. He was very vocal about not giving a crap about the ebbs and flows of AAPL. As others have stated, the price of AAPL is not at all tied to the performance of Apple. It's just a short term betting environment for day traders.
If Tim Cook starts spending his time talking about the price of AAPL, then that's when I'll sell because it tells me he's not focused on doing what Apple was created to do ... create great products.
I think the problem with Apple is they have overused the "premium" concept to the consumers. I have a 6s and it's a nice device, but there are other phones in the market that hardware wise are equally as nice, but they just don't run iOS. I honestly think that's the only thing iPhone has going for it, is the operating system. To some extent I would extend that same reason is why Macs are doing well.
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
How did they "overuse" it when those "other phones" are not being bought! What is being bought from the competition is low to mid end phones from the competition.
You do realize that Apple probably has 80-90% of the high end.
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.
Dumb comments. For Apple to use the money they have "in the bank" to increase dividends, they'd have to repatriate it. The US government is way too greedy and would take wayyyyy too big a cut of Apple were to bring it home. As a part-owner of Apple, I don't think the US government deserves the cut they are asking for and I don't want them to have it. So until something changes in that regard, the money is fine where it is. Perhaps they'll use it to build more factories overseas or invest in acquisitions. The US government is extremely greedy and short sighted regarding this money. If they would allow the money to be repatriated at a reasonable rate, that money would enter the US economy and start changing hands again and again - with the government taking out their cuts for capital gains, sales tax, etc...
And as for the buyback - you have no way of knowing if it was effective or ineffective. Perhaps it has helped to prop up the share price and keep it over $100. Without the share repurchase program we could be looking at significantly lower stock prices than we see now. One thing that is certain though is that with every share Apple repurchases, I own a Slightly larger chunk of the company!
Enough with the FUD. You are fear mongering. Things could certainly be better - but they aren't nearly bad enough to warrant the extreme descriptions you've chosen to use: ("TOTALLY ineffective", "DISASTER", "JOKE")
Misleading and inaccurate posts like yours aren't doing anything to help. Were they intended to damage perceptions further? Troll much?
Umm.... if you know anything about PE ratios, you'll know that they're all about the market's perception of value-creation from growth opportunities.
So, what is Apple's PE -- standalone, relative to peers, relative to market -- and what does it tell you?
That people's fracking perceptions are demented... And PE ratio are useless to gauge anything but a short term play (since its based on perception and that drives short term variations).
The fact a company can lose money 4 year straight and get essentially the same PE as a company which had 4 straight year of record growth in all metrics, tell me they don't have a clue. It's quite easy to demonstrate they don't have a clue.
I remember a lot of BS being said just before the dot.com crash and those same argument are repeated here; verbatim.
BTW, Apple's PE has been stuck low for a long long long time, many years; if someone had actually used this fucked up perception to not buy Apple stock, they'd likely have lost a huge amount of upsid.
Finally, Are you telling me that Amazon could really get 100% of all retail in Europe and the North America despite they being less and less competitive price wise across vast sectors. That's how insane their PE is; it's dot.com era stupid..
I can order straight from China at cheaper than the sales price on Amazon! Also, their margins of cloud products are constantly falling and that won't rescue them either.
So, WTH is 1000 based on, only magic makes sense considering how unlikely those earnings will ever appear.
1) I said nothing about Amazon.
2) You're 'fracking' clueless about the PE ratio. Please go on to something else about which you might actually know something.
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.
Dumb comments. For Apple to use the money they have "in the bank" to increase dividends, they'd have to repatriate it. The US government is way too greedy and would take wayyyyy too big a cut of Apple were to bring it home. As a part-owner of Apple, I don't think the US government deserves the cut they are asking for and I don't want them to have it. So until something changes in that regard, the money is fine where it is. Perhaps they'll use it to build more factories overseas or invest in acquisitions. The US government is extremely greedy and short sighted regarding this money. If they would allow the money to be repatriated at a reasonable rate, that money would enter the US economy and start changing hands again and again - with the government taking out their cuts for capital gains, sales tax, etc...
And as for the buyback - you have no way of knowing if it was effective or ineffective. Perhaps it has helped to prop up the share price and keep it over $100. Without the share repurchase program we could be looking at significantly lower stock prices than we see now. One thing that is certain though is that with every share Apple repurchases, I own a Slightly larger chunk of the company!
Enough with the FUD. You are fear mongering. Things could certainly be better - but they aren't nearly bad enough to warrant the extreme descriptions you've chosen to use: ("TOTALLY ineffective", "DISASTER", "JOKE")
Misleading and inaccurate posts like yours aren't doing anything to help. Were they intended to damage perceptions further? Troll much?
But Apple is using their overseas cash stock pile to pay dividends and buy back stock, in a round-a-bout way. By using their overseas cash as security, Apple has secure very low interest loans in the US and has use that money to pay dividends and finance their buy backs. So long as they can pay back that loan with US funds, they will get away with it. But if the US funds dries up, they will be faced with bringing back some of their overseas profits to pay off the loan and thus has to pay the US corporate tax on the money they bring back. Apple is gambling that the US will offers a tax holiday for oversea profits before then.
The added bonus is that the % interest on the loan (plus tax deduction) is lower than the %dividend they pay out per share and thus they come out ahead on the money use to buy back shares. And if I'm not mistaken, the interest they earn on their overseas cash, along with US tax deduction on the interest, just about pays for the cost of the loan. Apple couldn't print money cheaper than this.
I think the problem with Apple is they have overused the "premium" concept to the consumers. I have a 6s and it's a nice device, but there are other phones in the market that hardware wise are equally as nice, but they just don't run iOS. I honestly think that's the only thing iPhone has going for it, is the operating system. To some extent I would extend that same reason is why Macs are doing well.
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
Actually I feel the opposite. I think their hardware outweighs their software and services. The only places hardware wise where I think Apple needs to up its game is the camera. The 6S camera is good but I don't think it blows away the competition. In fact I think Samsung's Galaxy line has just as good if not better camera than iPhone.
Actually I feel the opposite. I think their hardware outweighs their software and services. The only places hardware wise where I think Apple needs to up its game is the camera. The 6S camera is good but I don't think it blows away the competition. In fact I think Samsung's Galaxy line has just as good if not better camera than iPhone.
According to Andy Ihnatko, he has other phones with "better" or "faster" cameras, but the iPhone integrates everything so well it continues to remain his camera of choice. That's Apple where they're at their best...integration.
I think the problem with Apple is they have overused the "premium" concept to the consumers. I have a 6s and it's a nice device, but there are other phones in the market that hardware wise are equally as nice, but they just don't run iOS. I honestly think that's the only thing iPhone has going for it, is the operating system. To some extent I would extend that same reason is why Macs are doing well.
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
Actually I feel the opposite. I think their hardware outweighs their software and services. The only places hardware wise where I think Apple needs to up its game is the camera. The 6S camera is good but I don't think it blows away the competition. In fact I think Samsung's Galaxy line has just as good if not better camera than iPhone.
Apple's module suffers from a smaller imager than most or all of the better reviewed smartphones wrt photography, a compromise necessary to fit the module into the iPhone, and still with a 0.5 mm bump. Look for Apple to change its design to multiple cameras / lenses and an even higher level of computational photography in the future.
Unfortunately, this is what happened when Henry Ford died. The vision was lost and it took Ford several decades to become relevant again. Even today, they are successful again, but nothing like they used to be.
Henry Ford was precisely the reason that Ford fell behind the competition; Henry only wanted to ship a limited number of models, with outdated designs at that, leaving the company vulnerable to newer competitors.
Umm.... if you know anything about PE ratios, you'll know that they're all about the market's perception of value-creation from growth opportunities.
So, what is Apple's PE -- standalone, relative to peers, relative to market -- and what does it tell you?
That people's fracking perceptions are demented... And PE ratio are useless to gauge anything but a short term play (since its based on perception and that drives short term variations).
The fact a company can lose money 4 year straight and get essentially the same PE as a company which had 4 straight year of record growth in all metrics, tell me they don't have a clue. It's quite easy to demonstrate they don't have a clue.
I remember a lot of BS being said just before the dot.com crash and those same argument are repeated here; verbatim.
BTW, Apple's PE has been stuck low for a long long long time, many years; if someone had actually used this fucked up perception to not buy Apple stock, they'd likely have lost a huge amount of upsid.
Finally, Are you telling me that Amazon could really get 100% of all retail in Europe and the North America despite they being less and less competitive price wise across vast sectors. That's how insane their PE is; it's dot.com era stupid..
I can order straight from China at cheaper than the sales price on Amazon! Also, their margins of cloud products are constantly falling and that won't rescue them either.
So, WTH is 1000 based on, only magic makes sense considering how unlikely those earnings will ever appear.
I think that Amazon has done well to be the first choice online for many, but those margins will remain low, and it still hasn't made much of a dent in retail sales at Walmart, et al. There's only so far it can go without a brick and mortar presence, and drones / same day delivery service will only net them a small increase in sales. Customers have paid sales tax for some time at Amazon, and that leveled the playing field for brick and mortar a bit. Prime brings 'em in, but its expensive to service those same customers.
Not seeing any barrier to entry for new players willing to accept years of losses, but logistically savvy niche companies can do very well against Amazon.
IMO, Tim Cook is having some major problems as CEO. I'm really glad other people are seeing what I see. I feel he is too quiet, and doesn't give the impression of a man who wants to lead the biggest company in the world. He hasn't defended the stock, nor given the Wall Street bullshitters to look forward to, leaving them to make up some nonsense that tanks the stock. He hasn't done anything about that. Sorry for this, but, just for a moment, compare him to Steve Jobs. Imagine what Steve's reaction to this nonsense about the stock would be. He would have gone nuts on the Wall Street guys, giving the impression to the public and other investors that he has control as a CEO. Tim hasn't done anything. I feel he needs to hire a new IR/PR team ASAP, or he needs to resign and someone capable and bubbly needs to replace him. Enough is enough, Apple can't take another year like 2015.
Steve for the most part ignored Wall Street. He kept his cash hoard / no dividend mantra through his reign at Apple precisely so that Apple retained control of its financials. There isn't anything wrong with Apple as a company, but it certainly doesn't fit with the casino mentality of Wall Street nor does it provide the continued perception of growth that analyst's want to see. It is just a machine that Steve created to generate revenue and profit on a scale that is an outlier. Tim continues to follow that, but now with dividends as fits a large, mature company.
Comments
So, what is Apple's PE -- standalone, relative to peers, relative to market -- and what does it tell you?
And PE ratio are useless to gauge anything but a short term play (since its based on perception and that drives short term variations).
The fact a company can lose money 4 year straight and get essentially the same PE as a company which had 4 straight year of record growth in all metrics, tell me they don't have a clue. It's quite easy to demonstrate they don't have a clue.
I remember a lot of BS being said just before the dot.com crash and those same argument are repeated here; verbatim.
BTW, Apple's PE has been stuck low for a long long long time, many years; if someone had actually used this fucked up perception to not buy Apple stock, they'd likely have lost a huge amount of upsid.
Finally,
Are you telling me that Amazon could really get 100% of all retail in Europe and the North America despite they being less and less competitive price wise across vast sectors.
That's how insane their PE is; it's dot.com era stupid..
I can order straight from China at cheaper than the sales price on Amazon!
Also, their margins of cloud products are constantly falling and that won't rescue them either.
So, WTH is 1000 based on, only magic makes sense considering how unlikely those earnings will ever appear.
Netflix is on every streamer, and smart TV. They have power to negotiate. Plus have you seen how many Emmy nominations they have, and if you haven't done so, you should watch Beasts of no nation.
P/E is the Market Value per share over the EPS, and EPS is derived from income (minus dividends) over the weighted average number of outstanding shares. That is what drives stock prices, regardless of your opinion on what makes sense. Companies are required by law to report EPS on quarterly and annual earnings, and thus the EPS is rarely needed to be calculated. That is how stock price is calculated, and you can root through all of Apple's reported figures and get their stock price.
The P/E itself is a ratio which measures share price compared to it's per-share earnings, and a high P/E ratio is not an indication of a 'better' stock to invest in, it's just an indication of how much investors are willing to pay for a dollar of profit. It's not a magic set of tarot cards that provide a sure-fire indication of a company's future, and often high P/Es are an indication of overvaluation. What stocks you should invest in boil down to the P/E ratio and your stratagy, mostly.
Out of curiosity, what is your investing strategy? As a defensive investor, Apple's low-average P/E is what attracted me to the stock itself. What drew you to Apple (if you invest?)
I think the reason why people are hesitant in investing in Apple is because it would seem like a company that has as much resources as Apple would be trying to take risks vs a small company like Tesla or Space X. Apple just seems like the miser grandpa that gives you a dollar for Christmas when he's a millionaire.
If Tim Cook starts spending his time talking about the price of AAPL, then that's when I'll sell because it tells me he's not focused on doing what Apple was created to do ... create great products.
What is being bought from the competition is low to mid end phones from the competition.
You do realize that Apple probably has 80-90% of the high end.
I found your premise absurd.
And as for the buyback - you have no way of knowing if it was effective or ineffective. Perhaps it has helped to prop up the share price and keep it over $100. Without the share repurchase program we could be looking at significantly lower stock prices than we see now. One thing that is certain though is that with every share Apple repurchases, I own a Slightly larger chunk of the company!
Enough with the FUD. You are fear mongering. Things could certainly be better - but they aren't nearly bad enough to warrant the extreme descriptions you've chosen to use: ("TOTALLY ineffective", "DISASTER", "JOKE")
Misleading and inaccurate posts like yours aren't doing anything to help. Were they intended to damage perceptions further? Troll much?
2) You're 'fracking' clueless about the PE ratio. Please go on to something else about which you might actually know something.
But Apple is using their overseas cash stock pile to pay dividends and buy back stock, in a round-a-bout way. By using their overseas cash as security, Apple has secure very low interest loans in the US and has use that money to pay dividends and finance their buy backs. So long as they can pay back that loan with US funds, they will get away with it. But if the US funds dries up, they will be faced with bringing back some of their overseas profits to pay off the loan and thus has to pay the US corporate tax on the money they bring back. Apple is gambling that the US will offers a tax holiday for oversea profits before then.
The added bonus is that the % interest on the loan (plus tax deduction) is lower than the %dividend they pay out per share and thus they come out ahead on the money use to buy back shares. And if I'm not mistaken, the interest they earn on their overseas cash, along with US tax deduction on the interest, just about pays for the cost of the loan. Apple couldn't print money cheaper than this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-raised-65-billion-in-debt-2015-2
https://pando.com/2014/04/29/with-all-that-cash-why-is-apple-borrowing-to-raise-its-dividend-and-buybacks/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-apples-stock-buyback-shows-about-corporate-tax-games/2013/04/25/bcd6dc9a-adea-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html ;
I think that Amazon has done well to be the first choice online for many, but those margins will remain low, and it still hasn't made much of a dent in retail sales at Walmart, et al. There's only so far it can go without a brick and mortar presence, and drones / same day delivery service will only net them a small increase in sales. Customers have paid sales tax for some time at Amazon, and that leveled the playing field for brick and mortar a bit. Prime brings 'em in, but its expensive to service those same customers.
Not seeing any barrier to entry for new players willing to accept years of losses, but logistically savvy niche companies can do very well against Amazon.
Steve for the most part ignored Wall Street. He kept his cash hoard / no dividend mantra through his reign at Apple precisely so that Apple retained control of its financials. There isn't anything wrong with Apple as a company, but it certainly doesn't fit with the casino mentality of Wall Street nor does it provide the continued perception of growth that analyst's want to see. It is just a machine that Steve created to generate revenue and profit on a scale that is an outlier. Tim continues to follow that, but now with dividends as fits a large, mature company.