Apple doesn't need to do anything at all. It cares ZERO for investors. If all the investors in AAPL up and died (and some of them seem like they should) Apple would cry zero tears for them.
Apple doesn't make money off the stock market so Apple's priority should NOT be towards the stock market. Apple's top priority is the CONSUMER, you know, the ones who buy Apple's products and are the reason that Apple is making record YOY profits. As soon as Apple starts looking after the stock market over the consumer Apple will disintegrate.
Apple knows this but AAPL investors are clearly too stupid to understand this and so want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Apple cares as much for AAPL investors "as a festering ball of dog snot. If you took their combined IQ they might have enough intelligence to tie their shoelaces... if they didn't drool over themselves first" - 10 points whoever gets the reference :-)
Except Apple needs to be concerned about stock price because they will lose talent if the stock continues to be in the toilet. Most of the top employees get most of their compensation from stock rewards. And many other employees also buy stock at a discount. But if Apple keeps losing value and Google stock keeps going up, employees will leave. For many the difference could be in millions of dollars.
And if Apple doesnt care care about investors why the hell did they spend over $120 billion on buybacks and dividends?
The only solution is for Apple to go private. I've been saying this for years here. Many have called me an idiot for saying so. But the fact is Wall Street will never give Apple the respect it deserves. Apple needs to go private and take its shares off of the public market.
All Apple would have to do is have shareholders agree to convert their public shares to private shares. The shares would then be traded on a private exchange far from the evil greedy hands of Wall Street. On the private exchang shorting the stock, day trading, computer trading, and options would be illegal. All shares would have to be held for at least 30 days. This is all legal. Apple would still need to report quarterly financials with the SEC since it would have over 2000 owners.
I kinda agree with what you are saying. But Apple board doesn't. Going private means paying real dividends and organising proper voting system. This would cripple them in many decision making on one hand and on the other they would have to say goodbye to pile of cash
This is a solid lesson to Apple - that the Market doesn't only care about how much money you are making. It is bothered a lot more about the sustainability of how much money you are making. And Apple, with its own policies, is the prime reason why doubts arise about sustainability. Apple is, with its own policies and behavior responsible for the feeling that the moment there is a decent alternative, people will migrate in droves to that alternative. It is another matter whether those doubts will ever become real, or whether people will ever migrate to the alternatives - as long as Apple doesn't amend its ways to reduce such fears, the market will assume this.
Kind of similar to what happened with Windows - where the alternative wasn't even decent!
Absolutely agree. It's obvious that they can't secure sustainability by monetising the market share (which is not even that big, to be honest) by themselves, yet they don't reach out on the market to acquire relatively small companies for the purpose. Google on the other hands grows with its own development and shopping around. Look at Youtube. Buying it for peanuts, now milking out gazillions... Next thing they will buy Netflix and in year or two people while be still whining about bad Google and Apple of principles.... If you can't do it yourself, then buy if the business is small enough to be swallowed without too much stomach cramps. Google has it's fiascos as well, especially where the fish is too big and stinky as Motorola was..
This is bad news. wall street knows that minor spec bumps on pc's and same ol thing each year isn't sustainable.
iPhones sales are down because the S model was a minor upgrade. 3D touch is a gimmick. yes, it's fater, but that's not enough anymore. People now understand that iPhone is $1000 thanks to Next/Edge plans. Phone sales will continue to go down. Apple thinks it can just sit around and coast. They aren't doing anything. They spec bump and sit back down. No innovation going on. The phone OS looks the same year after year. The hardware gets a new haircut once every 2 years. Not good enough in today's market.
Macs are just on auto pilot. Swap the proc and ram. Done til next year.
I think Tim Cook needs to step aside, and someone needs to make Ives get off his ass.
What's obvious, is that after each revolution there comes the long path of evolution. In other words: when introduced for the first time, a lot of Apple's products were indeed revolutionary by design, concept or, by consequence = disrupting the market. Then, what follows is an ever decreasing step change from one iteration to the next. Maybe some else feels this when looking back at the various keynotes, and how the excitement curve is decreasing over time. The MBP, and iPhone are at this point to be considered mature and fully developed. Finding new cherries each year to put on the cake and that impress is harder and harder. Also, in the course of time, competition naturally catches up - be it on the surface, or more substantially.
i think, none of what we see is a surprise, except for two things IMO:
One, that Apple still can generate such enormous profit with their products. This means that the current products and offerings are still outstanding.
Two, that especially because revolution is hard to plan, I would expect a more focused and clear path on evolutionary steps. The watch might have some potential for such an evolutionary step, eg. However, I do not see a coherent vision in what's currently on the rumor front. Heck, I even see a more and more messed up product line: no love for mini, macpro, product line up mess @ iPad, what seems an attempt to link feature set to screen size on the iPhone. Then, a car maker, an ad company, a content maker, ....
In in some way Apple Music to me represents a lot of current Apple: pseudo innovative, over hyped, clearly ducked up launch, an UI that's the opposite of what once made Apple King. Somehow half baked and lackluster. Just throwing money at something doesn't make something great. Same with talent. Apple has ample of all, but I increasingly feel they don't know what to do with it.
More and more I with for big and small revolutions that clearly showed apple is skating where the puck will be. Remember first WiFi in the MacBook, or any laptop for that matter? Omission of disk drive? Not following blue ray? Inteoduction of expose and many other small, but very useful additions to the OS?
Bring back the vision and communicate it loudly, Apple.
Impressive. Even I wouldn't have predicted the amount of dumb ass Monday morning quarterbacking in these comments.
Apple obviously isn't innovating. We know this because they aren't sharing their R&D programs or product development details like they used to do under Steve Jobs. In fact, Apple isn't communicating like they used to do under Steve Jobs.
Tim Cook obviously should be fired and replaced by the totally unnamed person who appears not to exist. His focus on revenue growth, profitability, and continuing the practices of Steve Jobs is unacceptable for a CEO. He still has a chance if he would shift his efforts to cater to the desires of a constantly changing amorphous group of short term AAPL investors.
We all know the problem with Apple's reliance on the iPhone, which provides almost 65% of Apple's revenue and profit. This is not nearly as good as Google reliance on advertising and its 95% contribution.
Google in its financial report today uses the same dollar corrected metric.
Except Googles value increased. And Apples decreased. Wonder why that is
Because the market gets right long term making mistakes all the way to there...You know guy, because they beat expectations. But really you want to go that way, will you use the same argument when the tide turn and the market would punish Google instead, because that time will come, and the arguments will be there. All I wanted to say, If you want to understand is that both companies blame currency exchange for lower performance than it could be. One in the financial statement (Google) and the other as an explanation in the conference call.
And please, wondering is what short term investors do. Give me actual hard facts of the long term demise of Apple, because you all are banging the "Apple is doomed" drum again. You all are caught in the "Survivor bias theory" absurd in itself. If you are interested in what it means ask.
Impressive. Even I wouldn't have predicted the amount of dumb ass Monday morning quarterbacking in these comments.
Apple obviously isn't innovating. We know this because they aren't sharing their R&D programs or product development details like they used to do under Steve Jobs. In fact, Apple isn't communicating like they used to do under Steve Jobs.
Tim Cook obviously should be fired and replaced by the totally unnamed person who appears not to exist. His focus on revenue growth, profitability, and continuing the practices of Steve Jobs is unacceptable for a CEO. He still has a chance if he would shift his efforts to cater to the desires of a constantly changing amorphous group of short term AAPL investors.
We all know the problem with Apple's reliance on the iPhone, which provides almost 65% of Apple's revenue and profit. This is not nearly as good as Google reliance on advertising and its 95% contribution.
Perfectly explained.
The fact that Apple is loosing value in Wall Streets point of view in spite of all what they do only means there is at least one of the aspects mentioned they do not do well at all. Either it's their current lineup, their strategy for the future, their way of communicating, or a combination of several. As it stands, there is a lack of faith in future growth. believe me, even at a few percent of their profits, and this cicnsiste tly, is more, many companies don't even dream about. However, shareholders don't care about the star quo so much, as they care about growth potential.
The fact that Apple is loosing value in Wall Streets point of view in spite of all what they do only means there is at least one of the aspects mentioned they do not do well at all. Either it's their current lineup, their strategy for the future, their way of communicating, or a combination of several. As it stands, there is a lack of faith in future growth. believe me, even at a few percent of their profits, and this cicnsiste tly, is more, many companies don't even dream about. However, shareholders don't care about the star quo so much, as they care about growth potential.
Really surprised of your long answer to my two words post to the other guy. I don't even remember what was for.
Anyway, remember that Wall Street was very bullish about Enron till the day they discovered it was a Scheme.
This is a solid lesson to Apple - that the Market doesn't only care about how much money you are making. It is bothered a lot more about the sustainability of how much money you are making. And Apple, with its own policies, is the prime reason why doubts arise about sustainability. Apple is, with its own policies and behavior responsible for the feeling that the moment there is a decent alternative, people will migrate in droves to that alternative. It is another matter whether those doubts will ever become real, or whether people will ever migrate to the alternatives - as long as Apple doesn't amend its ways to reduce such fears, the market will assume this.
Kind of similar to what happened with Windows - where the alternative wasn't even decent!
Absolutely agree. It's obvious that they can't secure sustainability by monetising the market share (which is not even that big, to be honest) by themselves, yet they don't reach out on the market to acquire relatively small companies for the purpose. Google on the other hands grows with its own development and shopping around. Look at Youtube. Buying it for peanuts, now milking out gazillions... Next thing they will buy Netflix and in year or two people while be still whining about bad Google and Apple of principles.... If you can't do it yourself, then buy if the business is small enough to be swallowed without too much stomach cramps. Google has it's fiascos as well, especially where the fish is too big and stinky as Motorola was..
Well they bought Motorola Mobility to a loss, and Nest for more than Apple paid for Beats, and please, show me the big money from that. Sorry I didn't read the Motorola part.
Apple already conveys what it wants to be in 2, 5, and 10 years out. It does it clearly and simply.
1. Apple wants to make the best products it can make that enrich and improves people's lives.
That is so simple. Apple is not focused on profits. Apple is focused on product.
2. And Apple's product development is simple too: To iteratively and gradually improve its products.
Apple has only a few product. It will never have the number of products its competitors has. Apple is simply more laser focused.
3. And Apple doesn't do revolutionary products except rarely. Apple always does incrementally upgrades products it has.
That is what Apple will always be.
Apple does not convey anything for that period ahead or even less. Others don't do much either, but they do more for sure.
1. It's quite opposite. Apple cares about short term profits too much which omits them greatly in taking bigger market share and really be what they claim to be: service company. Lower market share also means much less development in service sector. At the same time people are whining about how Google sells only one product it wouldn't hurt noting that the only service Apple does nowadays is reselling IP. They stopped selling it's own software and they failed miserably with mobile ads. On the other side Google sells it's click cash in so many different ways and streams that it is really hard to talk about one product, not to mention that all they need to do from time to time is wind up frequency of ads on their most popular monopolised channels and off you go! And they are far from full whack here... Not to mention, that they've barely scratched the surface of IP reselling...
2. Wrong again. Apple created 3 new product categories just in previous decade. Perception about Apple is much different than that and people don't like it to change to be like you described. Look at the car manufacturers. The most successful are the ones that created new product categories, not the ones that have simply improving existing. Apple is also not laser focused any more. Not even with products. Beside traditional personal computing they'd introduced 2 handheld product categories, tablet. living room device with its own integrated platform and watch. Compare this to other IT hardware manufacturers. It also offers quite a broad range of products in all main categories, especially notebooks.
3. Again: Apple created at least 3 new product categories just in previous decade (iPod, iPhone, iPad, add Apple TV, perhaps). At least two in decade before (Newton, iMac), not to mention large steps in innovations in "standard categories", like notebooks. At least 3 in decade before (Mac, DTP, GUI, not to mention loads of huge increments all over categories, especially in software and always recognising correct hardware trends and support them in early stage like, SCSI, USB, Wifi, Bluetooth, just to name few...) and one simple breakthrough product category in the first decade of its existence. What's going on after 2010 is not what Apple was. Beside the absence of new products it takes the ages to do a relatively small steps ahead in area of services offerings. So, completely wrong here: we are used to Apple to create revolutionary products and market and customers expects them to always be like that.
Forgetting conveniently iTunes Store and the App Store, I see.
And if Apple doesnt care care about investors why the hell did they spend over $120 billion on buybacks and dividends?
The only solution is for Apple to go private. I've been saying this for years here. Many have called me an idiot for saying so. But the fact is Wall Street will never give Apple the respect it deserves. Apple needs to go private and take its shares off of the public market.
I believe buybacks is a very powerful option. You should be aware that besides other benefits, it leads to the float getting reduced thus disrupting the supply. I agree that dividends are evil, specifically for companies that look for growth opportunities, for those who's business model is based on innovation and competitive advantage. What Tim is doing is converting Apple into another blue chip company with steady income and no vision of the future.
So: Stop dividends, Replace dividends with even more buybacks Buy that freaking Tesla+SpaceX, and put Musk in charge of everything.
Well the article assumes that Apple will never repatriate their cash reserves, but otherwise is my point even at $120 Apple is undervalued, whatever people want to believe. In many posts people are making assumptions that are not baked by any hard evidence but prejudice. I can be biased in my posts, but the hard facts are:
Apple is increasing its capex, hardly a sign of stagnation. Apple has expanded its stock option program lo lower levels in the company, hardly sign of any stagnation. CFOs, COOs and CEOs and the board of directors know for sure much more things about the future performance of their company than any outsider, even poksi. Hardly a sign of stagnation.
So yes, Apple shares are undervalued, that Wall Street don't understand Apple that don't means is not in the right path. It only means that Wall Street is making a bet. Probably a wrong bet, maybe a right bet, but a bet.
And I insist, is th Survivor Bias Theory at its best.
Absolutely agree. It's obvious that they can't secure sustainability by monetising the market share (which is not even that big, to be honest) by themselves, yet they don't reach out on the market to acquire relatively small companies for the purpose. Google on the other hands grows with its own development and shopping around. Look at Youtube. Buying it for peanuts, now milking out gazillions... Next thing they will buy Netflix and in year or two people while be still whining about bad Google and Apple of principles.... If you can't do it yourself, then buy if the business is small enough to be swallowed without too much stomach cramps. Google has it's fiascos as well, especially where the fish is too big and stinky as Motorola was..
Well they bought Motorola Mobility to a loss, and Nest for more than Apple paid for Beats, and please, show me the big money from that. Sorry I didn't read the Motorola part.
Heck, I have no idea how much money Nest brings or doesn't but thank you for adding it and making my point about Motorola. I guess if you shop around you are bound to screw it up from time to time. Even big time.
I could not agree more. Unfortunately many people on this forum simply refuse to look at Apple with a critical eye like this. Lets see what happens in the next five years with Apple. Because Cook has been sitting on billions and refuses to invest into the company so that it may diversify and ass significant alternate revenue streams. Relying on one basic source of revenue stream is not being smart. Everything Apple does is dependent on iPhone and iPad.
I've argued this before
Bullshit. 90% of Google's revenue is advertising. That hasn't changed. Wall Street got all nervous in 2013 when Samsung was the bogeyman. Now everyone is panicking saying Apple has to pivot to so-called services because Wall Street doesn't like hardware companies and iPhone growth is slowing. More bullshit. And how do we know Apple's not working on diversifying? Just because Cook doesn't tell us what's in the pipeline doesn't mean it's empty.
These people are insane man. Google spends ~$3 billion on R&D, while Apple spends 3x more at $9 billion, yet he says Cook "refuses to invest into the company..." Google will freely say how much they spend at wall-street conference calls. We could only ever know how much Apple spends because of the required SEC filings. Google will freely announce to the world what they're working on. We can only infer what Apple may be working on by their required FCC patent filings. Google's PR stunt has truly fooled this guy.
Google have yet to turn many, if any at all, of their projects into innovations, instead continuously relying on smartphone users viewing ads on the Web, YouTube, or any other ad placement mechanism. But If you remove the iPhone, all of Apple's other products combined still makes more money than the entire Alphabet company. I would say it is Google who is dependent on ads.
Apple does not convey anything for that period ahead or even less. Others don't do much either, but they do more for sure.
1. It's quite opposite. Apple cares about short term profits too much which omits them greatly in taking bigger market share and really be what they claim to be: service company. Lower market share also means much less development in service sector. At the same time people are whining about how Google sells only one product it wouldn't hurt noting that the only service Apple does nowadays is reselling IP. They stopped selling it's own software and they failed miserably with mobile ads. On the other side Google sells it's click cash in so many different ways and streams that it is really hard to talk about one product, not to mention that all they need to do from time to time is wind up frequency of ads on their most popular monopolised channels and off you go! And they are far from full whack here... Not to mention, that they've barely scratched the surface of IP reselling...
2. Wrong again. Apple created 3 new product categories just in previous decade. Perception about Apple is much different than that and people don't like it to change to be like you described. Look at the car manufacturers. The most successful are the ones that created new product categories, not the ones that have simply improving existing. Apple is also not laser focused any more. Not even with products. Beside traditional personal computing they'd introduced 2 handheld product categories, tablet. living room device with its own integrated platform and watch. Compare this to other IT hardware manufacturers. It also offers quite a broad range of products in all main categories, especially notebooks.
3. Again: Apple created at least 3 new product categories just in previous decade (iPod, iPhone, iPad, add Apple TV, perhaps). At least two in decade before (Newton, iMac), not to mention large steps in innovations in "standard categories", like notebooks. At least 3 in decade before (Mac, DTP, GUI, not to mention loads of huge increments all over categories, especially in software and always recognising correct hardware trends and support them in early stage like, SCSI, USB, Wifi, Bluetooth, just to name few...) and one simple breakthrough product category in the first decade of its existence. What's going on after 2010 is not what Apple was. Beside the absence of new products it takes the ages to do a relatively small steps ahead in area of services offerings. So, completely wrong here: we are used to Apple to create revolutionary products and market and customers expects them to always be like that.
Forgetting conveniently iTunes Store and the App Store, I see.
"... it wouldn't hurt noting that the only service Apple does nowadays is reselling IP...." IP => Intelectual Property. Last time I checked apps and music were exactly that. Ignoring conveniently everything else what was written there.
I believe buybacks is a very powerful option. You should be aware that besides other benefits, it leads to the float getting reduced thus disrupting the supply. I agree that dividends are evil, specifically for companies that look for growth opportunities, for those who's business model is based on innovation and competitive advantage. What Tim is doing is converting Apple into another blue chip company with steady income and no vision of the future.
So: Stop dividends, Replace dividends with even more buybacks Buy that freaking Tesla+SpaceX, and put Musk in charge of everything.
Well the article assumes that Apple will never repatriate their cash reserves, but otherwise is my point even at $120 Apple is undervalued, whatever people want to believe. In many posts people are making assumptions that are not baked by any hard evidence but prejudice. I can be biased in my posts, but the hard facts are:
Apple is increasing its capex, hardly a sign of stagnation. Apple has expanded its stock option program lo lower levels in the company, hardly sign of any stagnation. CFOs, COOs and CEOs and the board of directors know for sure much more things about the future performance of their company than any outsider, even poksi. Hardly a sign of stagnation.
So yes, Apple shares are undervalued, that Wall Street don't understand Apple that don't means is not in the right path. It only means that Wall Street is making a bet. Probably a wrong bet, maybe a right bet, but a bet.
And I insist, is th Survivor Bias Theory at its best.
Capex is rising, but it's not all that big, especially in relative terms, but I definitively agree they are not stagnating. The market currently perceives them as prosperous and innovative hardware company and values them around 10. I guess they might drive them eventually even up to 15 at some point, but this is not what they believe Apple can represent in foreseeable future and they are most probably right. Half of decade is away and Apple is struggling even with aligning and consolidating its services, not to mention their app support here. Look at the iTunes alone. Appalling app with which after decade still isn't able to be reliable in content synching with devices, not even mentioning the interface... Compared to Eddie Cue it seems like Scott Forstall was fired for nothing... I have no idea how Apple intends to go ahead the competitors with that, with all due respect to all the talent they have...
And of course they know much more that me or anyone else, but they should do better than hiding this behind poor performance apps that should sell the services. And for example keeping WEB iWorks in Beat for 2 years ?!?
Bullshit. 90% of Google's revenue is advertising. That hasn't changed. Wall Street got all nervous in 2013 when Samsung was the bogeyman. Now everyone is panicking saying Apple has to pivot to so-called services because Wall Street doesn't like hardware companies and iPhone growth is slowing. More bullshit. And how do we know Apple's not working on diversifying? Just because Cook doesn't tell us what's in the pipeline doesn't mean it's empty.
These people are insane man. Google spends ~$3 billion on R&D, while Apple spends 3x more at $9 billion, yet he says Cook "refuses to invest into the company..." Google will freely say how much they spend at wall-street conference calls. We could only ever know how much Apple spends because of the required SEC filings. Google will freely announce to the world what they're working on. We can only infer what Apple may be working on by their required FCC patent filings. Google's PR stunt has truly fooled this guy.
Google have yet to turn many, if any at all, of their projects into innovations, instead continuously relying on smartphone users viewing ads on the Web, YouTube, or any other ad placement mechanism. But If you remove the iPhone, all of Apple's other products combined still makes more money than the entire Alphabet company. I would say it is Google who is dependent on ads.
Wrong. In this case you should compare Apple's capex to all of it from biggest competitors in mobile and personal computing hardware space as well, not only Google's...
These people are insane man. Google spends ~$3 billion on R&D, while Apple spends 3x more at $9 billion, yet he says Cook "refuses to invest into the company..." Google will freely say how much they spend at wall-street conference calls. We could only ever know how much Apple spends because of the required SEC filings. Google will freely announce to the world what they're working on. We can only infer what Apple may be working on by their required FCC patent filings. Google's PR stunt has truly fooled this guy.
Google have yet to turn many, if any at all, of their projects into innovations, instead continuously relying on smartphone users viewing ads on the Web, YouTube, or any other ad placement mechanism. But If you remove the iPhone, all of Apple's other products combined still makes more money than the entire Alphabet company. I would say it is Google who is dependent on ads.
Wrong. In this case you should compare Apple's capex to all of it from biggest competitors in mobile and personal computing hardware space as well, not only Google's...
Huh? We're talking about Google vs Apple. Google announce R&D spending at $3 billion, while Apple SEC filing reports $9 billion. Capital expenditure is not necessarily R&D.
Well the article assumes that Apple will never repatriate their cash reserves, but otherwise is my point even at $120 Apple is undervalued, whatever people want to believe. In many posts people are making assumptions that are not baked by any hard evidence but prejudice. I can be biased in my posts, but the hard facts are:
Apple is increasing its capex, hardly a sign of stagnation. Apple has expanded its stock option program lo lower levels in the company, hardly sign of any stagnation. CFOs, COOs and CEOs and the board of directors know for sure much more things about the future performance of their company than any outsider, even poksi. Hardly a sign of stagnation.
So yes, Apple shares are undervalued, that Wall Street don't understand Apple that don't means is not in the right path. It only means that Wall Street is making a bet. Probably a wrong bet, maybe a right bet, but a bet.
And I insist, is th Survivor Bias Theory at its best.
Capex is rising, but it's not all that big, especially in relative terms, but I definitively agree they are not stagnating. The market currently perceives them as prosperous and innovative hardware company and values them around 10. I guess they might drive them eventually even up to 15 at some point, but this is not what they believe Apple can represent in foreseeable future and they are most probably right. Half of decade is away and Apple is struggling even with aligning and consolidating its services, not to mention their app support here. Look at the iTunes alone. Appalling app with which after decade still isn't able to be reliable in content synching with devices, not even mentioning the interface... Compared to Eddie Cue it seems like Scott Forstall was fired for nothing... I have no idea how Apple intends to go ahead the competitors with that, with all due respect to all the talent they have...
And of course they know much more that me or anyone else, but they should do better than hiding this behind poor performance apps that should sell the services. And for example keeping WEB iWorks in Beat for 2 years ?!?
Seriously Capex is not that big, bigger than Google, BTW, last year capex growth in Google had worse performance in YoY growth than in Apple's. And they were around the same.
Seriously guy, you keep on guessing, you can argue that is a two way ticket, I guess and you guess, only that mine are backed by history. Do you know when GM get its share price peak? in 2000. Do you know when GM product line and production efficiency got its peak? In 1960. Forty years needed Wall Street to notice it was a loser. So timing right Apple Peak by Wall Street at best is purely coincidental. As history shows, is much more probable a fall in stock value of Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. In the next couple of years than Apple revenue falling the way WS is guessing it would be. Seriously, a company that have been able against all odds to keep ten times gross margins in a stagnant industry as the PC and still grab market share from the competition is curious that don't make you think twice your arguments. On the other hand, that no company is capable long term to keep +30 P/E don't makes you made more prudent assumptions about Google long term. If high P/E have been sustainable in time is more related to the ridiculously low interests rates and the FED policy, than sustainability long term, so now that FED has change the mood you will see a movement to quality over growth, for sure.
Forgetting conveniently iTunes Store and the App Store, I see.
"... it wouldn't hurt noting that the only service Apple does nowadays is reselling IP...." IP => Intelectual Property. Last time I checked apps and music were exactly that. Ignoring conveniently everything else what was written there.
Perdona yo hablo castellano, si tu utilizas contracciones que no conozco es tu error, no el mío, si hablas para todo el mundo, procura hacerte entender, yo, a propósito no me hago entender ahora, te buscas un traductor, capullo, y déjate de jilipolleces pitagorin resabido.
I will not translate my post, If you want to ridiculice mine you must first be fluent in my own language, OK. So IP, is Intellectual Property, OK , but usually here in Spain we know IP as the IP Address of Internet. You are speaking to a global audience, reduce your localisms to a bare minimum, because they can be misleading, capullin.
Well they bought Motorola Mobility to a loss, and Nest for more than Apple paid for Beats, and please, show me the big money from that. Sorry I didn't read the Motorola part.
Heck, I have no idea how much money Nest brings or doesn't but thank you for adding it and making my point about Motorola. I guess if you shop around you are bound to screw it up from time to time. Even big time.
This don deter somebody, I don't know if it was you, to criticize Apple for buying Beats, cheaper than Nest and anyone guess if the value of the sales since the acquisition is higher or lower than the price they paid. Seriously Motorola Mobility was a very big screw, and you can take my words from what is worth, I saw it coming from minute one. The same as that pod on wheels will be a total failure, as a car guy I prefer to be left on the side of a road, or go by feet that be seen inside that hideous thing. And if they think that car industry, will surrender without a fight they are too innocent, and there are car manufacturers that got deeper pockets and higher profits than Google.
Sorry for my rudeness in my previous reply, I'm cooking, taking care of an ALS patient and speaking with you, is good to have a long conversation with a good adversary even if he, in the end, is deeply wrong and time will prove it. Guy is a matter of cash flow, only is a matter of cash flow, that's simple truth.
The fact that Apple is loosing value in Wall Streets point of view in spite of all what they do only means there is at least one of the aspects mentioned they do not do well at all. Either it's their current lineup, their strategy for the future, their way of communicating, or a combination of several. As it stands, there is a lack of faith in future growth. believe me, even at a few percent of their profits, and this cicnsiste tly, is more, many companies don't even dream about. However, shareholders don't care about the star quo so much, as they care about growth potential.
Uh, no. The term "Wall Street" seems to be defined as the current group of active buyers and sellers of AAPL stock. To say that this group defines whether Apple is doing something well or not is just ridiculous. Their interests don't have any connection to Apple's medium or long term success at achieving its mission of creating great products.
If if you think buying shares of Alphabet is a better long term investment than shares of Apple, by all means do it. One of them is a one trick pony that continues to throw crap against the wall hoping something sticks. The other is Apple. While shares of Google or a market cap may exceed Apple in the short term, I'll put my money behind Apple continuing to outperform Google for the next 20 years.
Comments
I kinda agree with what you are saying. But Apple board doesn't. Going private means paying real dividends and organising proper voting system. This would cripple them in many decision making on one hand and on the other they would have to say goodbye to pile of cash
Absolutely agree. It's obvious that they can't secure sustainability by monetising the market share (which is not even that big, to be honest) by themselves, yet they don't reach out on the market to acquire relatively small companies for the purpose. Google on the other hands grows with its own development and shopping around. Look at Youtube. Buying it for peanuts, now milking out gazillions...
Next thing they will buy Netflix and in year or two people while be still whining about bad Google and Apple of principles....
If you can't do it yourself, then buy if the business is small enough to be swallowed without too much stomach cramps. Google has it's fiascos as well, especially where the fish is too big and stinky as Motorola was..
i think, none of what we see is a surprise, except for two things IMO:
One, that Apple still can generate such enormous profit with their products. This means that the current products and offerings are still outstanding.
Two, that especially because revolution is hard to plan, I would expect a more focused and clear path on evolutionary steps. The watch might have some potential for such an evolutionary step, eg. However, I do not see a coherent vision in what's currently on the rumor front.
Heck, I even see a more and more messed up product line: no love for mini, macpro, product line up mess @ iPad, what seems an attempt to link feature set to screen size on the iPhone. Then, a car maker, an ad company, a content maker, ....
In in some way Apple Music to me represents a lot of current Apple: pseudo innovative, over hyped, clearly ducked up launch, an UI that's the opposite of what once made Apple King. Somehow half baked and lackluster. Just throwing money at something doesn't make something great. Same with talent. Apple has ample of all, but I increasingly feel they don't know what to do with it.
More and more I with for big and small revolutions that clearly showed apple is skating where the puck will be. Remember first WiFi in the MacBook, or any laptop for that matter? Omission of disk drive? Not following blue ray? Inteoduction of expose and many other small, but very useful additions to the OS?
Bring back the vision and communicate it loudly, Apple.
Because the market gets right long term making mistakes all the way to there...You know guy, because they beat expectations. But really you want to go that way, will you use the same argument when the tide turn and the market would punish Google instead, because that time will come, and the arguments will be there. All I wanted to say, If you want to understand is that both companies blame currency exchange for lower performance than it could be. One in the financial statement (Google) and the other as an explanation in the conference call.
And please, wondering is what short term investors do. Give me actual hard facts of the long term demise of Apple, because you all are banging the "Apple is doomed" drum again. You all are caught in the "Survivor bias theory" absurd in itself. If you are interested in what it means ask.
The fact that Apple is loosing value in Wall Streets point of view in spite of all what they do only means there is at least one of the aspects mentioned they do not do well at all.
Either it's their current lineup, their strategy for the future, their way of communicating, or a combination of several. As it stands, there is a lack of faith in future growth.
believe me, even at a few percent of their profits, and this cicnsiste tly, is more, many companies don't even dream about. However, shareholders don't care about the star quo so much, as they care about growth potential.
Anyway, remember that Wall Street was very bullish about Enron till the day they discovered it was a Scheme.
Well they bought Motorola Mobility to a loss, and Nest for more than Apple paid for Beats, and please, show me the big money from that. Sorry I didn't read the Motorola part.
Apple is increasing its capex, hardly a sign of stagnation.
Apple has expanded its stock option program lo lower levels in the company, hardly sign of any stagnation.
CFOs, COOs and CEOs and the board of directors know for sure much more things about the future performance of their company than any outsider, even poksi. Hardly a sign of stagnation.
So yes, Apple shares are undervalued, that Wall Street don't understand Apple that don't means is not in the right path. It only means that Wall Street is making a bet. Probably a wrong bet, maybe a right bet, but a bet.
And I insist, is th Survivor Bias Theory at its best.
Google have yet to turn many, if any at all, of their projects into innovations, instead continuously relying on smartphone users viewing ads on the Web, YouTube, or any other ad placement mechanism. But If you remove the iPhone, all of Apple's other products combined still makes more money than the entire Alphabet company. I would say it is Google who is dependent on ads.
"... it wouldn't hurt noting that the only service Apple does nowadays is reselling IP...." IP => Intelectual Property. Last time I checked apps and music were exactly that. Ignoring conveniently everything else what was written there.
I have no idea how Apple intends to go ahead the competitors with that, with all due respect to all the talent they have...
And of course they know much more that me or anyone else, but they should do better than hiding this behind poor performance apps that should sell the services. And for example keeping WEB iWorks in Beat for 2 years ?!?
Seriously guy, you keep on guessing, you can argue that is a two way ticket, I guess and you guess, only that mine are backed by history. Do you know when GM get its share price peak? in 2000. Do you know when GM product line and production efficiency got its peak? In 1960. Forty years needed Wall Street to notice it was a loser. So timing right Apple Peak by Wall Street at best is purely coincidental. As history shows, is much more probable a fall in stock value of Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. In the next couple of years than Apple revenue falling the way WS is guessing it would be. Seriously, a company that have been able against all odds to keep ten times gross margins in a stagnant industry as the PC and still grab market share from the competition is curious that don't make you think twice your arguments. On the other hand, that no company is capable long term to keep +30 P/E don't makes you made more prudent assumptions about Google long term. If high P/E have been sustainable in time is more related to the ridiculously low interests rates and the FED policy, than sustainability long term, so now that FED has change the mood you will see a movement to quality over growth, for sure.
I will not translate my post, If you want to ridiculice mine you must first be fluent in my own language, OK. So IP, is Intellectual Property, OK , but usually here in Spain we know IP as the IP Address of Internet. You are speaking to a global audience, reduce your localisms to a bare minimum, because they can be misleading, capullin.
This don deter somebody, I don't know if it was you, to criticize Apple for buying Beats, cheaper than Nest and anyone guess if the value of the sales since the acquisition is higher or lower than the price they paid. Seriously Motorola Mobility was a very big screw, and you can take my words from what is worth, I saw it coming from minute one. The same as that pod on wheels will be a total failure, as a car guy I prefer to be left on the side of a road, or go by feet that be seen inside that hideous thing. And if they think that car industry, will surrender without a fight they are too innocent, and there are car manufacturers that got deeper pockets and higher profits than Google.
Sorry for my rudeness in my previous reply, I'm cooking, taking care of an ALS patient and speaking with you, is good to have a long conversation with a good adversary even if he, in the end, is deeply wrong and time will prove it. Guy is a matter of cash flow, only is a matter of cash flow, that's simple truth.
If if you think buying shares of Alphabet is a better long term investment than shares of Apple, by all means do it. One of them is a one trick pony that continues to throw crap against the wall hoping something sticks. The other is Apple. While shares of Google or a market cap may exceed Apple in the short term, I'll put my money behind Apple continuing to outperform Google for the next 20 years.