Apple and Amazon are not competitors in any true sense beyond [rattles of a crapload of things in which they are clear competitors in the true sense of the word].
:facepalm:
Ugh. Apple and Amazon are both huge tech companies. Of course there is going to be some overlap. But Apple's PRIMARY business is iPhones, iPads, Macs and the App Store which together combine for like 90% of their revenue. Amazon's PRIMARY business is being an online retailer and their SECONDARY business is AWS. So Amazon and Apple compete in areas where each company gets like 10% of their revenue. To put it another way, Amazon could drop or sell off the areas that they compete with Apple in tomorrow and no one would bat an eye. Their stock price wouldn't drop because they are no longer selling Kindle Fires or giving people who already have Prime for free shipping free music and movies, and Apple's stock price wouldn't rise because maybe a few thousand more people will buy an iPad or Apple TV instead of a Kindle or Fire device.
But hey, if you want to have more excuses to have your irrational "we hate every company but Apple because Apple should be the only company on the plaent that is allowed to make money" then go ahead. Never mind that Amazon gets more money from Apple hosting iCloud than they ever will selling Kindles or running their tiny Android app store, which is like #4 or #5 among app stores in revenue behind Google and several Chinese app stores. Huawei makes more money on mobile hardware and apps than Amazon does, yet you are free to continue viewing them as your hated competitors.
That is what really bugs me about some corners of the Apple
fandom: the hypocrisy. They live for hating and bashing every other
real or imagined competitor and enemy but are hair trigger sensitive
when Apple is criticized: talk about being willing and able to take it
but not dish it out.
I don't think hypocrisy is exclusive to Apple fandom. You've pretty much described any group that is a rabid fan of anything.
All right fine. That is fair enough. I am seeing on some other forums how the very same Android fans who bashed Apple for getting rid of the headphone jack last year have fully embraced it now that Google is doing the same for the Pixel - and are ignoring that Google has given up their failed Nexus strategy in favor of copying Apple's model for the iPhone, the same model that they spent 7 or 8 years railing against - so yeah that is true.
Bezos has a Wall Street background. He knows how the game is played.
But eventually the game will stop and Amazon will need to show profits. And that's when the stock will come crashing hard
YES! Just like Android is going to tank, Google is going to collapse and Samsung is going to abandon mobile. It will all happen any day now ... right? Keep predicting the same thing year after year and it gets old.
Here is the deal. A few years back investors pressured Google for higher returns. Google responded by making Pichai the CEO, lessening the role of Schmidt/Page/Brin, restructuring into Alphabet and dumping most of the moonshots. Their revenue and profits have consistently increased YoY ever since DESPITE losing ground in search to Microsoft (more on them later), ads to Facebook, getting hammered right and left by fines and lawsuits, losing top tech and executive talent right and left, being locked out of China, sustained failure with their hardware efforts (with their only "success" being moving maybe 5 million $35 Chromecasts a year) and never making up any real ground on Apple or Microsoft (again more later) on apps or in the enterprise (the tiny foothold that they had with Google Suite they are losing as people are migrating to Office 365).
Microsoft? They ditch Ballmer for Nadella, scuttle their also failed hardware efforts, stopped trying to live off Windows and Office 365 licenses forever, ditch the Metro UI/UX for Windows, largely given up on being an entertainment portal as that market is lost to social networking and have focused first on being a multi-platform cloud and mobile subscription services company, second on being an enterprise company, third on competing with Amazon (and crushing Google) as a cloud infrastructure company, and finally on having a more focused, targeted strategy in taking search and ads revenue from Google. Result? After their nadir around 2012-2014 they have also returned to regular quarterly profit growth, which will accelerate when they finish building out their Azure infrastructure in about 3 years.
Samsung? (The mobile division anyway, the other divisons were always healthy). They shook up their management, cut a lot of fat in what had basically become a jobs program, cut back from offering literally dozens of new smartphone and tablet models a year down to a a few, and abandoned a lot of developing markets that they were using to dump old unsold stock to the Chinese companies, and stopped trying to compete with Google (and Apple) in software and services (other than Samsung Pay which is actually pretty good and Bixby which they have plans for that are different from Google's for Assistant) while competing with them in hardware where it makes sense (VR, smartwatches, smart TV and IoT hardware that builds on their prowess in appliances). Result? Increased profits every quarter since 2015 (except for the Note 7 debacle) even though they are selling far fewer phones and tablets now than they were 4-5 years ago.
Bottom line: if Amazon is ever pressured by their investors to start showing profits, they can do so easily. Right now the investors are content to allow Amazon to focus on growth by building out their infrastructure (both to ship/warehouse/deliver products as well as data centers for AWS) and make acquisitions like Whole Foods. When that happens, all Amazon has to do is stop it with their massive outlay of capital and sit back and earn profit from their current revenue streams. They can do so at any time, but right now there is no pressure, no need because everyone knows that they can do so at any time. (As opposed to Google, where 3-4 years ago a lot of people were really concerned about both their short term profitability, long term viability and their leadership team. Ditto Samung Mobile and - though to a lesser degree - Microsoft, though it should be pointed out that because of their enterprise business Microsoft was never in anywhere near the peril that Apple, Google and Linux fanboys thought/hoped .... Microsoft was simply never going to be the mess that IBM is now, that Sun became and Oracle is careening towards ... Oracle is actually trying to weasel out of continuing development on enterprise Java and instead turning it over to an open source foundation which is amazing).
But again, feel free to keep your "every tech company is going to be out of business 5 years from now except Apple" hopes and dreams alive only to be frustrated and keep moving the goalposts when it doesn't happen. But for goodness sakes, imagine if it did! Who would Apple buy the cloud infrastructure that they badly need for iTunes, the App Store and iCloud? Don't kid yourself: Apple has nowhere close to the infrastructure - let alone the expertise - to manage that themselves. And even if they did ... why bother? They would spend massive amounts of money to make ... about the same time of money they are making now because don't think that all of these people are going to run out and buy iCloud just because they are using Apple's infrastructure instead of Amazon's. (How many of these people even know that Apple uses AWS for iCloud backend in the first place?) Just like it is cheaper to buy OLED screens from Samsung than it is to manufacture their own, it is cheaper to rent cloud infrastructure from Amazon than build it themselves. It is only cost effective for Amazon because Amazon also uses that same cloud infrastructure for their primary business to begin with. (In other words, the same reason why it is cost effective for Google).
But hey, who cares about all that stuff about tech, business, economics and history anyway? It is all about hating on every tech company out there but Apple so the facts don't matter right?
..and I bet the same people that called Apple Park an "insane" expense for Apple, the richest company on the world, "careless, irresponsible" spending (lol sog35), and shit on the project when Apple's stock price was a bit lower, claiming they should "scrap" or "delay" it, will be the same people cheering on this project, even though Amazon does not even make a tiny fraction of Apple's profits.
I don't remember saying Apple Park was a waste of money.
You also don't seem to remember saying that Tim Cook should be fired.
I remember saying Cook should be fired IF he didn't improve:
1. Give Mac/iPad attention it needs
2. Improve Watch user interface
3. Improve iPhone design
4. Grow services
5. Stop being so reliant on China
In the past 12 months Cook has done all these things.
Here's a little gem from October last year.
Why the hell should I sell my Apple shares?
I own Apple.
Cook works for ME, not the other way around.
I'm holding my shares because once Cook is removed this stock will go up 30-50% in a matter of months. That's how much Cook is dragging this stock down.
So as well as being incorrect about owning Apple (proving you don't actually understand how shares work),
you also said your shares would go up once he was fired.
That's not an "if", Sog; that's a "when".
Do you really not have the sense to realise that everything you say on this forum can be found with a simple "fire Tim Cook" search? Did you honestly think you could make yourself look like some kind of investment wizard by pretending you supported Tim Cook all along?
Pathetic.
Here you go again:
Yup. Panos is young.Hehas something to prove. He has a legacy to build. He's excited and has passion.
On the other hand Cook is fat and satisfied. No passion. No fire. No excitement.
Apple really needs to inject some new blood. Cook/Ive/ect are old and lazy and not willing to take risks. They already have it made, all worth over $100 million each.
Its out of your goodwill that you curse me? do you even hear the non sense you are speaking?
dude, you need help. You have obvious anger issues. Any time I make any slight negative about Apple you come out ripping me. Stop being such a fanboy and open your eyes to reality.
Reality is Tim Cook has done a horrible job of pushing innovation the 5 years at the helm. His biggest accomplishment was releasing a big iPhone. Thats it. Mac sales are tanking, iPad sales are tanking, China sales are tanking. The Watch in its 2nd year is not the big innovative product Cook said it would be. AppleTV has been a bust. Even with Apple's vast resources AppleTV can't even surpass Roku. Its pathetic.
Tim Cook is a supply chain guy. Not a visionary. Guy needs to know his role and step down ASAP.
You think he has issues?
Seriously?
I'm sorry; you spend so much time here whining on about things that are essentially your own fault. You don't like the way he runs the company, then why don't you show a fraction of the courage he has and flog your shares? No? Why? Because you're too frightened to make the hard choice; you're scared that you as soon as you sell them, the price will shoot up. You lack the courage of Cook's convictions. So, paralysed because you're in over your head, you come here and whinge like a five year old while offering some of the most asinine ideas for things that Apple should do to raise the share price to make you happy. Your sense of entitlement is quite nauseating, frankly.
No matter how much you wish the Board will fire Tim Cook as an excuse for your own inadequacies, I'm afraid that won't happen because, unlike you, they see Apple as a long term prospect, and not a clueless amateur's day trade.
The fastest mobile processor on the market A world leader in manufacturing processes Taking over the whole device one chip at a time. Standing up to the FBI's attack on personal privacy Second most popular luxury watch brand. (clearly the man doesn't take risks!) Expansion into China and India Expansion into an energy supplier. Expansion into Automotive technology (clearly the man's a coward!) Music streaming The most profitable retail chain per square foot. Supporting the rights of workers up and down the supply chain
What the hell have you done that gives you the nuts to say he's not a visionary? Bleating about your portfolio doesn't qualify.
You like giving advice to Cook. Here's some for you.
Man the fuck up and sell your shares. Since you can't manage that then stop gobbing off about your shares. No one here is impressed.
That reply was from me, by the way. You're welcome.
Bezos has a Wall Street background. He knows how the game is played.
But eventually the game will stop and Amazon will need to show profits. And that's when the stock will come crashing hard
YES! Just like Android is going to tank, Google is going to collapse and Samsung is going to abandon mobile. It will all happen any day now ... right? Keep predicting the same thing year after year and it gets old.
Here is the deal. A few years back investors pressured Google for higher returns. Google responded by making Pichai the CEO, lessening the role of Schmidt/Page/Brin, restructuring into Alphabet and dumping most of the moonshots. Their revenue and profits have consistently increased YoY ever since DESPITE losing ground in search to Microsoft (more on them later), ads to Facebook, getting hammered right and left by fines and lawsuits, losing top tech and executive talent right and left, being locked out of China, sustained failure with their hardware efforts (with their only "success" being moving maybe 5 million $35 Chromecasts a year) and never making up any real ground on Apple or Microsoft (again more later) on apps or in the enterprise (the tiny foothold that they had with Google Suite they are losing as people are migrating to Office 365).
Microsoft? They ditch Ballmer for Nadella, scuttle their also failed hardware efforts, stopped trying to live off Windows and Office 365 licenses forever, ditch the Metro UI/UX for Windows, largely given up on being an entertainment portal as that market is lost to social networking and have focused first on being a multi-platform cloud and mobile subscription services company, second on being an enterprise company, third on competing with Amazon (and crushing Google) as a cloud infrastructure company, and finally on having a more focused, targeted strategy in taking search and ads revenue from Google. Result? After their nadir around 2012-2014 they have also returned to regular quarterly profit growth, which will accelerate when they finish building out their Azure infrastructure in about 3 years.
Samsung? (The mobile division anyway, the other divisons were always healthy). They shook up their management, cut a lot of fat in what had basically become a jobs program, cut back from offering literally dozens of new smartphone and tablet models a year down to a a few, and abandoned a lot of developing markets that they were using to dump old unsold stock to the Chinese companies, and stopped trying to compete with Google (and Apple) in software and services (other than Samsung Pay which is actually pretty good and Bixby which they have plans for that are different from Google's for Assistant) while competing with them in hardware where it makes sense (VR, smartwatches, smart TV and IoT hardware that builds on their prowess in appliances). Result? Increased profits every quarter since 2015 (except for the Note 7 debacle) even though they are selling far fewer phones and tablets now than they were 4-5 years ago.
Bottom line: if Amazon is ever pressured by their investors to start showing profits, they can do so easily. Right now the investors are content to allow Amazon to focus on growth by building out their infrastructure (both to ship/warehouse/deliver products as well as data centers for AWS) and make acquisitions like Whole Foods. When that happens, all Amazon has to do is stop it with their massive outlay of capital and sit back and earn profit from their current revenue streams. They can do so at any time, but right now there is no pressure, no need because everyone knows that they can do so at any time. (As opposed to Google, where 3-4 years ago a lot of people were really concerned about both their short term profitability, long term viability and their leadership team. Ditto Samung Mobile and - though to a lesser degree - Microsoft, though it should be pointed out that because of their enterprise business Microsoft was never in anywhere near the peril that Apple, Google and Linux fanboys thought/hoped .... Microsoft was simply never going to be the mess that IBM is now, that Sun became and Oracle is careening towards ... Oracle is actually trying to weasel out of continuing development on enterprise Java and instead turning it over to an open source foundation which is amazing).
But again, feel free to keep your "every tech company is going to be out of business 5 years from now except Apple" hopes and dreams alive only to be frustrated and keep moving the goalposts when it doesn't happen. But for goodness sakes, imagine if it did! Who would Apple buy the cloud infrastructure that they badly need for iTunes, the App Store and iCloud? Don't kid yourself: Apple has nowhere close to the infrastructure - let alone the expertise - to manage that themselves. And even if they did ... why bother? They would spend massive amounts of money to make ... about the same time of money they are making now because don't think that all of these people are going to run out and buy iCloud just because they are using Apple's infrastructure instead of Amazon's. (How many of these people even know that Apple uses AWS for iCloud backend in the first place?) Just like it is cheaper to buy OLED screens from Samsung than it is to manufacture their own, it is cheaper to rent cloud infrastructure from Amazon than build it themselves. It is only cost effective for Amazon because Amazon also uses that same cloud infrastructure for their primary business to begin with. (In other words, the same reason why it is cost effective for Google).
But hey, who cares about all that stuff about tech, business, economics and history anyway? It is all about hating on every tech company out there but Apple so the facts don't matter right?
Amazon makes some profit and loses some profit year after year. They're not actually making a TON of money. Not even close. Not even remotely close to Apple. Now they want to copy what Apple did and make some huge fancy place with which will cost a bundle which Amazon really doesn't have. It's mostly smoke and mirrors and yet it's been working for them.
Now they're basically getting city's to fight over them building in their City which I'm going to assume be Tax breaks and what not to get them to come to them. I think what little money they actually have should go into paying debt or at least something better them a big fancy office space. Apple's UFO was like pocket change to Apple. If they wanted to, they could build them all over the U.S. That would be silly, but they could do it and still not go into debt.
2) Amazon isn't a "break even" company because they can't figure out how to make their business successful, they just plan really well—really fucking well—with reinvesting their profits into growth. This is actually a good thing.
Apple obviously invests in their future, but they've been more conservative about it; and why wouldn't they be when they almost went under. Now they kinda* have more money than they know what to do with and have dramatically increased R&D, marketing, lobbying, and a new HQ, so of which were long overdue and others that are still a fraction of what other companies do compared to their revenue and profits—and, yet they are still very conservative when you look at them as a whole. You just have to look at what Apple has paid for acquiring companies to see how they're still not very loose with their money. Or, look at all the companies that forum members here wish Apple bough many years ago. Zuckerberg bought Instagram for $1 billion overnight without even getting board approval, as I recall.
* I say kinda, because of how funds are held in other countries and why it still behooves them to borrow money at low interest rates over being heavily taxed or lose a higher interest rate to use funds held in certain accounts.
Nah. This is bullshit.
Amazon can't make huge profits even if they wanted to.
85% of their revenue is from selling commodity goods to retail. That has NEVER been a high margin business. Saying they reinvest all their profits is just being lazy. Investing in what? Fullfilllment centers? Robots? Guess what? All that stuff gets capitalized and expenses over 20+ years. In other words if Amazon invests in a new fulfillment center the $1 billion price tag of the center does not hit their profits in one year. Rather it gets spread over 20+ years as depreciation.
Amazon funnels everything back into the business through development and acquisitions so they can report lower profits and pay less tax.
You, of course, would not know this because your focus is short-term bragging rights over long-term gains.
..and I bet the same people that called Apple Park an "insane" expense for Apple, the richest company on the world, "careless, irresponsible" spending (lol sog35), and shit on the project when Apple's stock price was a bit lower, claiming they should "scrap" or "delay" it, will be the same people cheering on this project, even though Amazon does not even make a tiny fraction of Apple's profits.
I don't remember saying Apple Park was a waste of money.
Yeah, you don't remember a lot of things. Conveniently.
..and I bet the same people that called Apple Park an "insane" expense for Apple, the richest company on the world, "careless, irresponsible" spending (lol sog35), and shit on the project when Apple's stock price was a bit lower, claiming they should "scrap" or "delay" it, will be the same people cheering on this project, even though Amazon does not even make a tiny fraction of Apple's profits.
I don't remember saying Apple Park was a waste of money.
You also don't seem to remember saying that Tim Cook should be fired.
I remember saying Cook should be fired IF he didn't improve:
1. Give Mac/iPad attention it needs
2. Improve Watch user interface
3. Improve iPhone design
4. Grow services
5. Stop being so reliant on China
In the past 12 months Cook has done all these things.
You're absolutely full of it, and this is nothing but revisionist history. You have hundreds upon hundreds of rants demanding Cook's head for one reason, and one reason alone: stock price. There wasn't an "if" in there. You basically fucked up every single thread for a year, by going in to rant and rave about how Cook needs to be fired. And now suddenly, after the stock price shot up (from Cook continuing to do exactly what he was doing) you invented all this bullshit to pretend that Cook suddenly "changed" and met your standards. Horse-shit. Apple was (and still is) undervalued- and instead of trusting Apple instead of Wall street, you shat on Cook at every conceivable opportunity. Glad your portfolio is doing better, but nobody here will forget your small-mindedness and the fact that you'll turn on Apple in a second again when the stock price doesn't suit you, no matter how good the products are. Cook's Apple has made you a fuckload of money, but that didn't stop you from shrieking over and over about how he should be sacked instead of having even a modicum of trust in him and the company.
Again, you're full of shit, and this entire forum knows it. You were wrong, and Cook was right, but you're too much of a coward (as well as sociopath) to admit it.
Heh.
I have a friend who would refer to that as "a passionate and fairly comprehensive b**ch-slapping."
Well … he's more of an acquaintance than a friend.
"That's the way I see Cook. A weak CEO who was lucky to be given the CEO job without earning it at all."
"I wish Bezo's was Apple's CEO."
"Drop the car program immediately. Apple does not need to get into a risky car program."
"The smartphone has pretty much peaked. […] Services need to replace iPhone revenue."
And, for a bonus round regarding Apple Park, "Another bone head move by Tim "Edward II" Cook," to which he replied when informed that the new campus was Steve's vision, "Still does not make it right. […] Anyone with half a brain knows building a $5 billion building in Cali would cause problems.
No! Wait! Hang on! I know this one!… No, sorry Bruce; it's gone.
Comments
But hey, if you want to have more excuses to have your irrational "we hate every company but Apple because Apple should be the only company on the plaent that is allowed to make money" then go ahead. Never mind that Amazon gets more money from Apple hosting iCloud than they ever will selling Kindles or running their tiny Android app store, which is like #4 or #5 among app stores in revenue behind Google and several Chinese app stores. Huawei makes more money on mobile hardware and apps than Amazon does, yet you are free to continue viewing them as your hated competitors.
Here is the deal. A few years back investors pressured Google for higher returns. Google responded by making Pichai the CEO, lessening the role of Schmidt/Page/Brin, restructuring into Alphabet and dumping most of the moonshots. Their revenue and profits have consistently increased YoY ever since DESPITE losing ground in search to Microsoft (more on them later), ads to Facebook, getting hammered right and left by fines and lawsuits, losing top tech and executive talent right and left, being locked out of China, sustained failure with their hardware efforts (with their only "success" being moving maybe 5 million $35 Chromecasts a year) and never making up any real ground on Apple or Microsoft (again more later) on apps or in the enterprise (the tiny foothold that they had with Google Suite they are losing as people are migrating to Office 365).
Microsoft? They ditch Ballmer for Nadella, scuttle their also failed hardware efforts, stopped trying to live off Windows and Office 365 licenses forever, ditch the Metro UI/UX for Windows, largely given up on being an entertainment portal as that market is lost to social networking and have focused first on being a multi-platform cloud and mobile subscription services company, second on being an enterprise company, third on competing with Amazon (and crushing Google) as a cloud infrastructure company, and finally on having a more focused, targeted strategy in taking search and ads revenue from Google. Result? After their nadir around 2012-2014 they have also returned to regular quarterly profit growth, which will accelerate when they finish building out their Azure infrastructure in about 3 years.
Samsung? (The mobile division anyway, the other divisons were always healthy). They shook up their management, cut a lot of fat in what had basically become a jobs program, cut back from offering literally dozens of new smartphone and tablet models a year down to a a few, and abandoned a lot of developing markets that they were using to dump old unsold stock to the Chinese companies, and stopped trying to compete with Google (and Apple) in software and services (other than Samsung Pay which is actually pretty good and Bixby which they have plans for that are different from Google's for Assistant) while competing with them in hardware where it makes sense (VR, smartwatches, smart TV and IoT hardware that builds on their prowess in appliances). Result? Increased profits every quarter since 2015 (except for the Note 7 debacle) even though they are selling far fewer phones and tablets now than they were 4-5 years ago.
Bottom line: if Amazon is ever pressured by their investors to start showing profits, they can do so easily. Right now the investors are content to allow Amazon to focus on growth by building out their infrastructure (both to ship/warehouse/deliver products as well as data centers for AWS) and make acquisitions like Whole Foods. When that happens, all Amazon has to do is stop it with their massive outlay of capital and sit back and earn profit from their current revenue streams. They can do so at any time, but right now there is no pressure, no need because everyone knows that they can do so at any time. (As opposed to Google, where 3-4 years ago a lot of people were really concerned about both their short term profitability, long term viability and their leadership team. Ditto Samung Mobile and - though to a lesser degree - Microsoft, though it should be pointed out that because of their enterprise business Microsoft was never in anywhere near the peril that Apple, Google and Linux fanboys thought/hoped .... Microsoft was simply never going to be the mess that IBM is now, that Sun became and Oracle is careening towards ... Oracle is actually trying to weasel out of continuing development on enterprise Java and instead turning it over to an open source foundation which is amazing).
But again, feel free to keep your "every tech company is going to be out of business 5 years from now except Apple" hopes and dreams alive only to be frustrated and keep moving the goalposts when it doesn't happen. But for goodness sakes, imagine if it did! Who would Apple buy the cloud infrastructure that they badly need for iTunes, the App Store and iCloud? Don't kid yourself: Apple has nowhere close to the infrastructure - let alone the expertise - to manage that themselves. And even if they did ... why bother? They would spend massive amounts of money to make ... about the same time of money they are making now because don't think that all of these people are going to run out and buy iCloud just because they are using Apple's infrastructure instead of Amazon's. (How many of these people even know that Apple uses AWS for iCloud backend in the first place?) Just like it is cheaper to buy OLED screens from Samsung than it is to manufacture their own, it is cheaper to rent cloud infrastructure from Amazon than build it themselves. It is only cost effective for Amazon because Amazon also uses that same cloud infrastructure for their primary business to begin with. (In other words, the same reason why it is cost effective for Google).
But hey, who cares about all that stuff about tech, business, economics and history anyway? It is all about hating on every tech company out there but Apple so the facts don't matter right?
Why the hell should I sell my Apple shares?
I own Apple.
Cook works for ME, not the other way around.
I'm holding my shares because once Cook is removed this stock will go up 30-50% in a matter of months. That's how much Cook is dragging this stock down.
So as well as being incorrect about owning Apple (proving you don't actually understand how shares work),
https://www.ft.com/content/7bd1b20a-879b-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896
you also said your shares would go up once he was fired.
That's not an "if", Sog; that's a "when".
Do you really not have the sense to realise that everything you say on this forum can be found with a simple "fire Tim Cook" search? Did you honestly think you could make yourself look like some kind of investment wizard by pretending you supported Tim Cook all along?
Pathetic.
Here you go again:
Yup. Panos is young. He has something to prove. He has a legacy to build. He's excited and has passion.
On the other hand Cook is fat and satisfied. No passion. No fire. No excitement.
Apple really needs to inject some new blood. Cook/Ive/ect are old and lazy and not willing to take risks. They already have it made, all worth over $100 million each.
I want a young CEO who is hungry.
I see no "if" here, Sog. Where's the "if"?
Here's one of my personal favourites:You think he has issues?
Seriously?
I'm sorry; you spend so much time here whining on about things that are essentially your own fault. You don't like the way he runs the company, then why don't you show a fraction of the courage he has and flog your shares? No? Why? Because you're too frightened to make the hard choice; you're scared that you as soon as you sell them, the price will shoot up. You lack the courage of Cook's convictions. So, paralysed because you're in over your head, you come here and whinge like a five year old while offering some of the most asinine ideas for things that Apple should do to raise the share price to make you happy. Your sense of entitlement is quite nauseating, frankly.
No matter how much you wish the Board will fire Tim Cook as an excuse for your own inadequacies, I'm afraid that won't happen because, unlike you, they see Apple as a long term prospect, and not a clueless amateur's day trade.
The fastest mobile processor on the market
A world leader in manufacturing processes
Taking over the whole device one chip at a time.
Standing up to the FBI's attack on personal privacy
Second most popular luxury watch brand. (clearly the man doesn't take risks!)
Expansion into China and India
Expansion into an energy supplier.
Expansion into Automotive technology (clearly the man's a coward!)
Music streaming
The most profitable retail chain per square foot.
Supporting the rights of workers up and down the supply chain
What the hell have you done that gives you the nuts to say he's not a visionary? Bleating about your portfolio doesn't qualify.
You like giving advice to Cook. Here's some for you.
Man the fuck up and sell your shares. Since you can't manage that then stop gobbing off about your shares. No one here is impressed.
That reply was from me, by the way. You're welcome.
Amazon funnels everything back into the business through development and acquisitions so they can report lower profits and pay less tax.
You, of course, would not know this because your focus is short-term bragging rights over long-term gains.
I have a friend who would refer to that as "a passionate and fairly comprehensive b**ch-slapping."
Well … he's more of an acquaintance than a friend.