Apple to take on Snapchat, Facebook in 2017 with new iPhone video editing app - report

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    latifbplatifbp Posts: 544member
    This is where Apple needs to jus copy what others are doing. Most users would prefer to have the features built into iMessage versus going to another app IMO. Skim the key features and call it good.
    I bet it'll be an app for iMessage as they demonstrated at WWDC
    cali
  • Reply 22 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    paxman said:
    gatorguy said:
    It's beginning to look as tho any successful mobile app startup with a unique idea has it's days numbered. They'll have the choice to be sucked up by deep-pocketed techs like Facebook, Apple, Google and MS or pushed aside into oblivion by copycat apps that are built-in to that company's devices making the original 3rd party app superfluous for many users. Once Google/Apple, et al decide to mimic a feature where they see some smallish player successful the odds are against 'em.

    In a maturing market I guess copycatting should be expected tho. Game app developers copying other game apps, tech's copying each other, China copying the techs...
    New revenue streams become tougher so why reinvent the wheel when someone else already did the hard work. 
    I fear this will be a failure. Apple copies all the time and I don't really have a problem with that, but I wonder if it would be better for Apple to buy Snapchat or similar, and simply finance development and reap whatever rewards. Let the existing company do their thing. If Apple is wanting in on Social Networks for the money I am not in favour. Snapchat is going to introduce ads which in my view is the beginning of the end. Whatever Apple builds or buys, it should be free, platform agnostic and free of ads.
    I agree buying companies is a good idea.

    From a shareholder perspective buying companies is great. It really is a no risk all reward dealIts basically a no risk all reward deal as long as you have enough cash. In fact Apple buy companies with the $100 billion in stock they bought back. So even the cash would not take a hit.
    No sir. That bought-back stock was burned (well, retired), no longer in existence. it can't be used to buy anything and has no remaining value. 
  • Reply 23 of 34
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Yeah I forgot Messages will be opened. This will hopefully be a messages feature. There's already too many apps on iOS. 

    williamlondonlatifbp
  • Reply 24 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    paxman said:
    gatorguy said:
    It's beginning to look as tho any successful mobile app startup with a unique idea has it's days numbered. They'll have the choice to be sucked up by deep-pocketed techs like Facebook, Apple, Google and MS or pushed aside into oblivion by copycat apps that are built-in to that company's devices making the original 3rd party app superfluous for many users. Once Google/Apple, et al decide to mimic a feature where they see some smallish player successful the odds are against 'em.

    In a maturing market I guess copycatting should be expected tho. Game app developers copying other game apps, tech's copying each other, China copying the techs...
    New revenue streams become tougher so why reinvent the wheel when someone else already did the hard work. 
    I fear this will be a failure. Apple copies all the time and I don't really have a problem with that, but I wonder if it would be better for Apple to buy Snapchat or similar, and simply finance development and reap whatever rewards. Let the existing company do their thing. If Apple is wanting in on Social Networks for the money I am not in favour. Snapchat is going to introduce ads which in my view is the beginning of the end. Whatever Apple builds or buys, it should be free, platform agnostic and free of ads.
    I agree buying companies is a good idea.

    From a shareholder perspective buying companies is great. It really is a no risk all reward dealIts basically a no risk all reward deal as long as you have enough cash. In fact Apple buy companies with the $100 billion in stock they bought back. So even the cash would not take a hit.
    No sir. That bought-back stock was burned (well, retired), no longer in existence. it can't be used to buy anything and has no remaining value. 
    yes. but only technically. (ROTFL!)

    Apple can reissue new shares and that would just be like selling the shares they bought back.
    No sir the two are totally unrelated. Buying back one has nada to do with Apple being able to issue new stock. If that were the case explain why Apple would retire that stock in the first place. It would be less expensive to just use it for acquisitions rather than burning the money spent on it if that was their intent. But at least you got past believing Apple stock buyback program somehow resulted in an asset as you did a few months back. You're getting there. 
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 25 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    paxman said:
    gatorguy said:
    It's beginning to look as tho any successful mobile app startup with a unique idea has it's days numbered. They'll have the choice to be sucked up by deep-pocketed techs like Facebook, Apple, Google and MS or pushed aside into oblivion by copycat apps that are built-in to that company's devices making the original 3rd party app superfluous for many users. Once Google/Apple, et al decide to mimic a feature where they see some smallish player successful the odds are against 'em.

    In a maturing market I guess copycatting should be expected tho. Game app developers copying other game apps, tech's copying each other, China copying the techs...
    New revenue streams become tougher so why reinvent the wheel when someone else already did the hard work. 
    I fear this will be a failure. Apple copies all the time and I don't really have a problem with that, but I wonder if it would be better for Apple to buy Snapchat or similar, and simply finance development and reap whatever rewards. Let the existing company do their thing. If Apple is wanting in on Social Networks for the money I am not in favour. Snapchat is going to introduce ads which in my view is the beginning of the end. Whatever Apple builds or buys, it should be free, platform agnostic and free of ads.
    I agree buying companies is a good idea.

    From a shareholder perspective buying companies is great. It really is a no risk all reward dealIts basically a no risk all reward deal as long as you have enough cash. In fact Apple buy companies with the $100 billion in stock they bought back. So even the cash would not take a hit.
    No sir. That bought-back stock was burned (well, retired), no longer in existence. it can't be used to buy anything and has no remaining value. 
    yes. but only technically. (ROTFL!)

    Apple can reissue new shares and that would just be like selling the shares they bought back.
    No sir the two are totally unrelated. Buying back one has nada to do with Apple being able to issue new stock. If that were the case explain why Apple would retire that stock in the first place. It would be less expensive to just use it for acquisitions rather than burning the money spent on it if that was their intent. But at least you got past believing Apple stock buyback program somehow resulted in an asset as you did a few months back. You're getting there. 


    But the reality is Apple can reissue new stock 'as if' they are just reissuing stock they already bought.

    Dont get got caught up in all the financial mumbo jumbo.

    Apple buys back $50 billion in stock. 
    Retires $50 billion in stock.
    Apple issues $50 billion in new stock
    Apple uses the stock to buy a company for $50 billion

    Yes its an extra step but its the same result. 
    Apple can buy a $50 billion company without paying out a cent of cash.
    *sigh* 
    You can lead a horse to water. . . 
    singularity
  • Reply 26 of 34
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:


    But the reality is Apple can reissue new stock 'as if' they are just reissuing stock they already bought.

    Dont get got caught up in all the financial mumbo jumbo.

    Apple buys back $50 billion in stock. 
    Retires $50 billion in stock.
    Apple issues $50 billion in new stock
    Apple uses the stock to buy a company for $50 billion

    Yes its an extra step but its the same result. 
    Apple can buy a $50 billion company without paying out a cent of cash.
    *sigh* 
    You can lead a horse to water. . . 
    In Sogs case he would then flog it to death before trying to drown it.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member



    But the reality is Apple can reissue new stock 'as if' they are just reissuing stock they already bought.

    Dont get got caught up in all the financial mumbo jumbo.

    Apple buys back $50 billion in stock. 
    Retires $50 billion in stock.
    Apple issues $50 billion in new stock
    Apple uses the stock to buy a company for $50 billion

    Yes its an extra step but its the same result. 
    Apple can buy a $50 billion company without paying out a cent of cash.
    *sigh* 
    You can lead a horse to water. . . 
    you can parse it any way you want.

    The fact remains: Apple can issue $50 billion in stock with little consequence to its stock price or financial situation.

    In effect all they would be doing is reversing the buyback. That's in. No big deal.  The stock price has not gone up 1 cent because of the buyback and neither would it go down if Apple reissued billions in stock to buy a company.
    You should REALLY spend some time looking into the steps required for a company to issue new securities. I recall you stating you were a certified accountant working for large corporate clients. IMO that's something you should at least tangentially be familiar with. Plainly you are not. 
  • Reply 28 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    A. Reissue - the act of buying stock and then selling it again

    B. Buyback and retire - the act of buying back stock and retiring the shares

    C. Issue new shares - act of distributing new shares to the public

    Now tell me what the difference is between doing A. and doing B+C.

    There is no difference. 

    There is ZERO difference between Reissue stock and Buying back+retiring+ issuing new shares.

    You are just getting stuck with terminology. The economic realities are exactly the same.

    And Apple is already doing this. They are buying back shares, retiring them, and at the same time issuing new shares to pay employees.
    There is a major difference. Do some reading. Seriously.

    You're an accountant, right? Use your accountant knowledge and look at SEC rules that govern a new round of stock issuance. Yup, there are rules and procedures that have to be followed. Even then the SEC or the existing shareholders may not allow it.  Apple cannot just print up new stock certificates and sell them whenever it suits them.  
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 29 of 34

    sog35 said:
    This is where Apple needs to jus copy what others are doing. Most users would prefer to have the features built into iMessage versus going to another app IMO. Skim the key features and call it good.
    agree

    Its Apple's turn to use other companies as their 'R&D' department.

    Make a copy of Youtube, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook, ect.
    Apple is the new Samsung?
    Sometimes you do not have to reinvent the wheel. I am not saying Apple should define itself as a copy company like Samsung. However when there is not a need to re invent or innovate keep R&D low and add features customers want.
  • Reply 30 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    A. Reissue - the act of buying stock and then selling it again

    B. Buyback and retire - the act of buying back stock and retiring the shares

    C. Issue new shares - act of distributing new shares to the public

    Now tell me what the difference is between doing A. and doing B+C.

    There is no difference. 

    There is ZERO difference between Reissue stock and Buying back+retiring+ issuing new shares.

    You are just getting stuck with terminology. The economic realities are exactly the same.

    And Apple is already doing this. They are buying back shares, retiring them, and at the same time issuing new shares to pay employees.
    There is a major difference. Do some reading. Seriously.

    You're an accountant, right? Use your accountant knowledge and look at SEC rules that govern a new round of stock issuance. Yup, there are rules and procedures that have to be followed. Even then the SEC or the existing shareholders may not allow it.  Apple cannot just print up new stock certificates and sell them whenever it suits them.  
    Of course Apple can issue new stock any time it wants.  It does it every quarter!

    Are you following the news or what!  They just gave Tim Cook $100,000,000 in stock.  And Google has issued TENS of BILLIONS of stock to its executives the last decade. In the last 5 years alone Google has issued 42 million new shares worth almost $30 billion.

    Apple could issue $50 billion in stock tomorrow without getting any approve from the SEC. 

    Go look up Apples SEC filings

    http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AAPL/2716743591x0xS1193125-15-356351/320193/filing.pdf

    "Common stock and additional paid-in capital, $0.00001 par value: 12,600,000,000 shares authorized; 5,578,753,000 and 5,866,161,000 shares issued and outstanding, respectively"

    Apple can issue OVER 6 billion more shares if they want to. 
    Apple has 12.6 billion of authorized shares (they have the authority to issue) but only 5.8 billion has been issued and outstanding.

    Apple can easily issue half a billion shares tomorrow for $50 billion without doing jack with the SEC.
    http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1193125-14-84697&cik=320193 No Apple cannot simply choose to release capital (authorized) stock for any purpose and for any reason at any time. Please do some reading. Authorized stock does not mean Apple's management can issue it on a whim.

    But that doesn't matter anyway to the original statement: There is zero connection between Apple buying back and retiring (burning) that stock and Apple's ability to release new stock within the limits of shareholder approval, or the SEC's depending on circumstances. So whether Apple bought back a single solitary share doesn't matter as it would not add nor remove any existing restrictions on Apple's capital stock issuance. Fact. They are two completely disconnected events and not a technicality. 
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 31 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:

    But the reality is Apple can reissue new stock 'as if' they are just reissuing stock they already bought.

    Dont get got caught up in all the financial mumbo jumbo.

    Apple buys back $50 billion in stock. 
    Retires $50 billion in stock.
    Apple issues $50 billion in new stock
    Apple uses the stock to buy a company for $50 billion

    Yes its an extra step but its the same result. 
    Apple can buy a $50 billion company without paying out a cent of cash.
    Wow. You don't even see it do you, even tho you wrote it yourself?! Apple spent $50B to buy-back the stock in your scenario. That's far more than a "cent" and not nearly the same result as simply issuing $50B in authorized shares. That wouldn't have required Apple emptying $50B from their wallet.

    So enough with the silliness please. There's no way any rational person could not understand that. That "extra step" is a needless and expensive one if acquiring another company is your goal.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:

    But the reality is Apple can reissue new stock 'as if' they are just reissuing stock they already bought.

    Dont get got caught up in all the financial mumbo jumbo.

    Apple buys back $50 billion in stock. 
    Retires $50 billion in stock.
    Apple issues $50 billion in new stock
    Apple uses the stock to buy a company for $50 billion

    Yes its an extra step but its the same result. 
    Apple can buy a $50 billion company without paying out a cent of cash.
    Wow. You don't even see it do you, even tho you wrote it yourself?! Apple spent $50B to buy-back the stock in your scenario. That's far more than a "cent" and not nearly the same result as simply issuing $50B in authorized shares. That wouldn't have required Apple emptying $50B from their wallet.

    So enough with the silliness please. There's no way any rational person could not understand that. That "extra step" is a needless and expensive one if acquiring another company is your goal.
    So looks like I proved you wrong. still don't understand (fixed it for you)

    Apple ALREADY bought back about spent around $100 million Billion of their cash to burn the shares.
    So AT THIS POINT they could simply issue new shares to buy companies. (which according to your reasoning cost them $100B in CASH since they're one and the same to you, just 'technicality" mumbo-jumbo)

    So dude, you were wrong. right

    Google has issued $30 billion in new shares the last 5 years...
     while avoiding tapping into $30B of their cash to buy and retire existing ones and Apple can do the same with ownership approval. So gosh, they're not the same thing at all!
    Your silliness continues. .  .
    I'm done. You're probably the only member here who pretends to not understand, but I'm sure all of them are tired of reading about it. 
    edited August 2016
  • Reply 33 of 34
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,244member
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:
    gatorguy said:
    sog35 said:

    But the reality is Apple can reissue new stock 'as if' they are just reissuing stock they already bought.

    Dont get got caught up in all the financial mumbo jumbo.

    Apple buys back $50 billion in stock. 
    Retires $50 billion in stock.
    Apple issues $50 billion in new stock
    Apple uses the stock to buy a company for $50 billion

    Yes its an extra step but its the same result. 
    Apple can buy a $50 billion company without paying out a cent of cash.
    Wow. You don't even see it do you, even tho you wrote it yourself?! Apple spent $50B to buy-back the stock in your scenario. That's far more than a "cent" and not nearly the same result as simply issuing $50B in authorized shares. That wouldn't have required Apple emptying $50B from their wallet.

    So enough with the silliness please. There's no way any rational person could not understand that. That "extra step" is a needless and expensive one if acquiring another company is your goal.
    So looks like I proved you wrong. still don't understand (fixed it for you)

    Apple ALREADY bought back about spent around $100 million Billion of their cash to burn the shares.
    So AT THIS POINT they could simply issue new shares to buy companies. (which according to your reasoning cost them $100B in CASH since they're one and the same to you, just 'technicality" mumbo-jumbo)

    So dude, you were wrong. right

    Google has issued $30 billion in new shares the last 5 years...
     while avoiding tapping into $30B of their cash to buy and retire existing ones and Apple can do the same with ownership approval. So gosh, they're not the same thing at all!
    Your silliness continues. .  .
    I'm done. You're probably the only member here who pretends to not understand, but I'm sure all of them are tired of reading about it. 
    Dude, just stop.

    You are wrong. You said Apple could not issue $50 billion in shares without shareholder approval. They can.
    Oh geez. . . 
    http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/PSi_Technologies_Holdings_(PSIT)/Matters_Requiring_Shareholder_Approval
    https://media2.mofo.com/documents/faqsthe20percentrulenonregisteredsecurities.pdf
    edited August 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.