Is Apple really consumer focussed?
This is a company that takes out features that are valuable to the consumer, just because it can. This is a company that has crappy quality accessories (lightning cables) that get frayed in months, but cost a bomb to replace. And this is a company that ensures that third party accessories are also pricey, because of its desire to extract its pound of flesh from every source possible (MFI program). This is a company that takes out all reasonably priced options on a regular basis, and forces its loyal customers to pay top dollar for its latest products.
Apple is a company that operates from a stance of, if you want to use Apple products, pay top dollar, else we don't want you around. And at least once you pay that fancy price for entry, one would expect to be treated well - but no - even there Apple short changes you on a regular basis.
Hardware flaws that necessitate product recalls and company paid fixes have clauses that ensure that any device with even slightest deviation from perfect will not qualify. And the customer is forced to pay a ridiculous price for getting the device fixed, for no real fault of his. I can live perfectly fine with a small crack on my screen - but Apple will refuse to change the battery unless I pay to get the screen fixed as well. So, a small crack, means you pay 60% of the exchange price of your phone, if you want to fix an Apple caused battery flaw.
Consumer focussed, my foot!?
Apple has been earning so much bad karma, that I understand fully well why there are many people who hate Apple so passionately. Earlier, there were many that used to love Apple too - but slowly many of the people who once loved Apple are disgruntled customers.
I have used iPhone from the very first day since it launched - but now the thought of buying ridiculously priced products from Apple makes me cringe.
Every time I hear news of Apple having troubles against Qualcomm, I rejoice. Everytime I hear news about hardware flaws forcing recalls and fixes, I rejoice. Apple is a company that deserves its day of reckoning, and hopefully it will come soon.
So much nonsense, so little time.
- Apple is likely the most consumer-focused of the bunch, which is why they have the highest consumer satisfaction ratings.
- They remove things as part of compromise decisions that they feel will benefit more overall than the niche users. Like SD cards (as a pro, I've always and only used CF).
- My Lightning cables last me many, many years, and hold up much better than my Monoprice or Amazon ones, which seem to fall apart at the connector.
- What product recalls are you referring to, exactly? The only recalls I can think of of late are all major car brands.
...The rest of your bullshit isn't worth reading. Sorry.
Any and all predictions made about the current state of the stock market are equally valid within the realm of the total chaos that has enveloped the market. We are living in Crazy Town country run totally by unchecked incompetence at all levels of government and financial policy making leadership. So, go ahead and collect up all the pet peeves you have about Apple and wrap them up in whatever claims of causation that you want - if that really makes you feel better. Put an official looking stamp on it and declare victory and total vindication. Heck, here's a template for the certificate that you can present to yourself:
I hereby declare that Apple's current declines in stock price, market cap, and current competitive position is because ________fill in your pet peeve here_______ which I so accurately predicted or stated to a small group of witnesses on _______fill in a date here _______. This certifies that myself alone, being in possession of infinite knowledge, insight, and unquestionably perfect opinion, have totally schooled Tim Cook in the proper way to run Apple, and that his flagrant disregard for adhering to my guidance has led to the current distress in Apple's situation.
_____ place seal here ______
Print up as many as you wish. Whatever makes you feel better - because that's what all of this is always about. You. If the market turns upward, you can throw them all in the trash or change a few words to show that your insight has caused the most amazing, best ever, and biggliest improvements any company has ever seen. With chaos, all things are possible. The ever swirling and changing assignments of credit and blame are there for you to direct however you so desire.
Create the iPad Pro, but don't include the Apple Pencil - and even better, sell it for a ridiculous $99. Consumer friendly, indeed.
Remove the 3.5mm Audio port, and convert it to lightning. Excellent way to force customers to buy MFI third party audio products. Apple wins in many ways, customer loses every possible way.
For long time, phablets were too unwieldy, didn't make sense - but today, if you want the latest technology, nothing smaller than 5.8". Very customer friendly.
And if those large phones bend, you are handling them wrong.
Compromise on the battery to an extent where battery capacity and quality truly suck - but best response by the company is to throttle its OS, to make devices slower. Very customer friendly.
By mistake Apple launched a model of the Mac Mini that was below $500 - but soon ensured that all components were soldered, not user replaceable - so if you want to upgrade, you pay Apple's ridiculous prices. Very customer friendly. And now, the cheapest Mac Mini is $700 - and still soldered parts!
Apple would be the best example of a company that nickel-and-dime's its customers - except that its not nickels and dimes - its $20 minimum for anything and everything.
- Jesus are you daft? The Pencil is a small computer in pencil form-factor. Why do you expect it to be "free"? You do realize that means the price will be higher and every single iPad customer would be paying for it, when most of them probably don't need it -- that's why it's a specialized accessory.
- More stupidity on the legacy analog audio port -- Apple's hardware VP explained removing it created the space needed for water gaskets, bigger cameras modules (ex: non-Plus gained OIS), and a bigger battery. I'll take those any day of the week. Most people only use the freebie headphones in the box. Use an adapter if that isn't you. But you're stupid if you believe it means "forcing" you to use Apple MFI headphones -- use the fucking adapter or any pair of Bluetooth headphones in the world, dur.
- Nope, there is nothing sub-bar about iPhone batteries. The entire industry uses the same exact battery tech, tho Apple has better power efficiency due to custom hardware and software. ALL BATTERIES WEAR OUT, and the throttling is only after that point until you get your shit together and service the worn battery. Just like you do with a car.
- The new Mac mini has increased $150 from launch day after inflation, and ditched the mobile parts to gain desktop components and a high-speed I/O. And it doesn't have soldered RAM, durrrrr. You simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Again.
Is Apple really consumer focussed?
This is a company that takes out features that are valuable to the consumer, just because it can. This is a company that has crappy quality accessories (lightning cables) that get frayed in months, but cost a bomb to replace. And this is a company that ensures that third party accessories are also pricey, because of its desire to extract its pound of flesh from every source possible (MFI program). This is a company that takes out all reasonably priced options on a regular basis, and forces its loyal customers to pay top dollar for its latest products.
Apple is a company that operates from a stance of, if you want to use Apple products, pay top dollar, else we don't want you around. And at least once you pay that fancy price for entry, one would expect to be treated well - but no - even there Apple short changes you on a regular basis.
Hardware flaws that necessitate product recalls and company paid fixes have clauses that ensure that any device with even slightest deviation from perfect will not qualify. And the customer is forced to pay a ridiculous price for getting the device fixed, for no real fault of his. I can live perfectly fine with a small crack on my screen - but Apple will refuse to change the battery unless I pay to get the screen fixed as well. So, a small crack, means you pay 60% of the exchange price of your phone, if you want to fix an Apple caused battery flaw.
Consumer focussed, my foot!?
Apple has been earning so much bad karma, that I understand fully well why there are many people who hate Apple so passionately. Earlier, there were many that used to love Apple too - but slowly many of the people who once loved Apple are disgruntled customers.
I have used iPhone from the very first day since it launched - but now the thought of buying ridiculously priced products from Apple makes me cringe.
Every time I hear news of Apple having troubles against Qualcomm, I rejoice. Everytime I hear news about hardware flaws forcing recalls and fixes, I rejoice. Apple is a company that deserves its day of reckoning, and hopefully it will come soon.
Wow. That is dark. And besides the topic of the article.
On the topic: Munster does not know what he is writing about. Apple will have nothing to show in 5G tech this year. So how will they profit from that. The services revenue he is raving about is tightly tied to hardware sales (Apple Care, etc). So unless something drastically changes with Apples pricing, service will be growing at a limited rate. Why that will propel Apples share price is probably his secret.
Besides the topic? Maybe - just read the very first paragraph. Munster's entire reasoning is related to Apple being a consumer minded company. And I gave several points why they aren't really consumer focused, and only bottom line focused. I would consider a company like Amazon to be more consumer focused ANY DAY, compared to Apple.
No, your points and examples don't hold any water. If you wiped the smear off your glasses it might be clearer to you.
I hope you don't manage anyone's investments or money, for their sake. You're simply unhinged.
Apropos of nothing, I sure hope Apple is buying back their stock and taking advantage of the crazy volatility right now.
As of October they still had $70B committed to 2018 buybacks but so far unused.
Note: A potential stumbling block may rise from the ground at some point, with the SEC's rule that allows a program like Apple's being challenged. Until 1982 stock buybacks like this were not legal per the SEC, considered a method of stock price manipulation. Even if a rule change doesn't happen others in the financial world are warning of a hard landing when the money for these buybacks inevitably runs out.
Animals eating their young comes to mind.
I've been following this via Ped30 for awhile, and have never come across any analyst concerned about any future "hard landing" for Apple vis a vis buybacks.
Do you have links?
Best case for Apple is buying most/all of the retail investors out, leaving the Berkshire Hathaways and institutional investors.
Apropos of nothing, I sure hope Apple is buying back their stock and taking advantage of the crazy volatility right now.
As of October they still had $70B committed to 2018 buybacks but so far unused.
Note: A potential stumbling block may rise from the ground at some point, with the SEC's rule that allows a program like Apple's being challenged. Until 1982 stock buybacks like this were not legal per the SEC, considered a method of stock price manipulation. Even if a rule change doesn't happen others in the financial world are warning of a hard landing when the money for these buybacks inevitably runs out.
Animals eating their young comes to mind.
I've been following this via Ped30 for awhile, and have never come across any analyst concerned about any future "hard landing" for Apple vis a vis buybacks.
Do you have links?
Best case for Apple is buying most/all of the retail investors out, leaving the Berkshire Hathaways and institutional investors.
I wasn't making that particular comment with only Apple in mind.
Apropos of nothing, I sure hope Apple is buying back their stock and taking advantage of the crazy volatility right now.
As of October they still had $70B committed to 2018 buybacks but so far unused.
Note: A potential stumbling block may rise from the ground at some point, with the SEC's rule that allows a program like Apple's being challenged. Until 1982 stock buybacks like this were not legal per the SEC, considered a method of stock price manipulation. Even if a rule change doesn't happen others in the financial world are warning of a hard landing when the money for these buybacks inevitably runs out.
Animals eating their young comes to mind.
I've been following this via Ped30 for awhile, and have never come across any analyst concerned about any future "hard landing" for Apple vis a vis buybacks.
Do you have links?
Best case for Apple is buying most/all of the retail investors out, leaving the Berkshire Hathaways and institutional investors.
I wasn't making that particular comment with only Apple in mind.
There's others you can find with a search if you're interested.
I don't disagree that the intent to repatriate overseas funds was to "create jobs" via new investment, but the legislation was very weak in that regard.
Been loading up on AAPL while it's on sale. Look at the price to earnings vs any other FAANG. I think indexing and a fidgety market hit it disproportionately while the fundamentals are very strong.
Also buying Microsoft. Never got why they weren't included in FAANG. FAGMAN? Yeah, let's go with that.
sebastian37 said: ... The services revenue he is raving about is tightly tied to hardware sales (Apple Care, etc). So unless something drastically changes with Apples pricing, service will be growing at a limited rate. Why that will propel Apples share price is probably his secret.
The question is... does Apple realize this? Or, do they think they are the new {insert media company here}? Hopefully, they just get back to their solid core and grow naturally because they have good stuff. They seem to be trying way too hard. That said, IMO, unless we're entering a worldwide economic collapse (a possibility?), their stock is undervalued right now due to silly speculation and misunderstanding.
mwhite said: As the saying goes don't like it don't buy it.......
And, as the saying also goes... if too many people don't buy it...
... There is no logical reason for the US stock market to be behaving as it had the last month, and things will turn around. Apple will be a big part of that.
Agreed. All the reasons I've heard have been based on media hysteria silliness (regarding Apple, or otherwise).
genovelle said: Most Services is not tied to hardware sales and several were listed in the article. They are tied to an install base of people who are willing to pay for things not looking for the bottom of the barrel. With over a Billion active users just on IOS they have lots of opportunities with people already in their ecosystem.
Yes, but if I weren't in the Apple ecosystem, I wouldn't even consider any of Apple's 2nd-rate services. They are pretty directly tied. Now, can their services grow within that base assuming the base keeps growing or even stays level? Sure, there is lots of room to grow in that way if Apple starts improving the services. But, that's a big if given Apple's history on this stuff. (ie: they do hardware well, and traditionally did well with OS and some software. Their 'services' have typically been a mix of unreliable and/or corny.
StrangeDays said: ... Apple is likely the most consumer-focused of the bunch ...
We might have a difference in word intent here. Are we talking about consumer focused as in their product line is now squarely aimed at pop-culture consumers? Or, that they work the hardest to satisfy their customers? For example, as much as I dislike some aspects of Amazon, they are far more customer-service focused than Apple. They also probably sell more stuff to the average consumer.
Any and all predictions made about the current state of the stock market are equally valid within the realm of the total chaos that has enveloped the market. We are living in Crazy Town country run totally by unchecked incompetence at all levels of government and financial policy making leadership. So, go ahead and collect up all the pet peeves you have about Apple and wrap them up in whatever claims of causation that you want - if that really makes you feel better. Put an official looking stamp on it and declare victory and total vindication.
Depends on if the world is starting to wake up or not and see through some of the propaganda. It wouldn't take a lot for the whole thing to come crumbling down. But, assuming the charade continues, the stock should go back up.
StrangeDays said: ... legacy analog audio port ...
This again? Maybe Apple had valid (to them) reasons for removing it, but the BS about any kind of legacy associated with a 3.5mm analog jack kind of ruins it. Lightning will be legacy long before the 3.5mm jack.
gatorguy said: As for the bigger picture there's actually been quite a bit written about the new corporate tax laws, how the money is being "invested" (it's not) and the dangers our "new capitalism" is creating for the economy.
Good points, and thanks for using scare-quotes, as it absolutely isn't about investing, and the system operating isn't capitalism. I'm just sad both terms are being so trashed by the foolery in the minds of most people.
Apropos of nothing, I sure hope Apple is buying back their stock and taking advantage of the crazy volatility right now.
As of October they still had $70B committed to 2018 buybacks but so far unused.
Note: A potential stumbling block may rise from the ground at some point, with the SEC's rule that allows a program like Apple's being challenged. Until 1982 stock buybacks like this were not legal per the SEC, considered a method of stock price manipulation. Even if a rule change doesn't happen others in the financial world are warning of a hard landing when the money for these buybacks inevitably runs out.
Animals eating their young comes to mind.
Money for buybacks will only run out when Apple stops making money. That may be inevitable, but it seems unlikely to happen soon, given that their revenue forecast for the current quarter is $89-93 Billion, which I think would make this the most profitable quarter for any American company in history. A respectable portion of those revenues will be profit, and much of that profit will probably be used for more buybacks.
As a shareholder, I love the buybacks. It’s a way to allow me to benefit from the company’s successes and only pay a 15% capital gains tax. It also allows them to raise the dividend without increasing the overall payout.
As for Amazon being more customer-focused, I think it’s easier to seem customer-focused with their business model. Amazon makes a surprisingly small profit from the millions of people people who buy things from Amazon.com, and it’s easier to generate happy customers if you don’t need to make a healthy profit from the business. It allows you to have low prices, big inventory, fast shipping, easy returns, etc. What they have done is still very impressive of course, but mostly in terms of logistics rather than catering to customers’ individual/unusual needs. Amazon makes a large portion of their profit from a much smaller number of customers with the AWS business, and this essentially subsidizes the other business lines. It’s easier to focus on the unusual/specific/individual needs of a small number of high-value customers than millions of high-margin (but less high-value) customers like those of Apple.
Apropos of nothing, I sure hope Apple is buying back their stock and taking advantage of the crazy volatility right now.
As of October they still had $70B committed to 2018 buybacks but so far unused.
Note: A potential stumbling block may rise from the ground at some point, with the SEC's rule that allows a program like Apple's being challenged. Until 1982 stock buybacks like this were not legal per the SEC, considered a method of stock price manipulation. Even if a rule change doesn't happen others in the financial world are warning of a hard landing when the money for these buybacks inevitably runs out.
Animals eating their young comes to mind.
As a shareholder, I love the buybacks.
I'm not surprised you do, but specifically why? Is it just the dividend?
Do you think by doing so they've artificially manipulated the stock price to increase the booked value for your portfolio? Do you believe the stock price would have been significantly lower had they not done so, and if so how much do you personally think it raised the price?
Apropos of nothing, I sure hope Apple is buying back their stock and taking advantage of the crazy volatility right now.
As of October they still had $70B committed to 2018 buybacks but so far unused.
Note: A potential stumbling block may rise from the ground at some point, with the SEC's rule that allows a program like Apple's being challenged. Until 1982 stock buybacks like this were not legal per the SEC, considered a method of stock price manipulation. Even if a rule change doesn't happen others in the financial world are warning of a hard landing when the money for these buybacks inevitably runs out.
Animals eating their young comes to mind.
As a shareholder, I love the buybacks.
I'm not surprised you do, but specifically why? Is it just the dividend?
Do you think by doing so they've artificially manipulated the stock price to increase the booked value for your portfolio? Do you believe the stock price would have been significantly lower had they not done so, and if so how much do you personally think it raised the price?
A stock buyback isn't paying you a dividend. Shareholders demand returns on their investments in the form of dividends which is a cost of equity – so the business is essentially paying for the privilege of accessing funds it isn't using. Buying back some or all of the outstanding shares can be a simple way to pay off investors and reduce the overall cost of capital.
If a company can't spend its cash fast enough in an efficient manner that would grow the company, using excess cash to buy back its own shares to not have to pay out those shareholders dividends is a perfectly fine use of cash which lowers their costs longer term.
And yes, it does produce more stock scarcity, thus keeping the price up. Manipulated is a strong word, but scarcity of an equity does drive up its value.
Money saving is an art and you need to learn it as soon as you start earning, otherwise, it will be too late. I also have started learning all this. I am getting help from my dad with investment related decisions.
Money saving is an art and you need to learn it as soon as you start earning, otherwise, it will be too late. I also have started learning all this. I am getting help from my dad with investment related decisions.
I'd agree about saving, and especially budgeting and planning... my only advice would be to be careful about what gets called investment. Generally, yes, broad portfolios in the markets, real-estate, etc. have been investments. But, the way the markets work... the rules... the media influence and hype, as well as government regulation (or lack of) and such make them much less sure than they should be.
exhibit A, the housing collapse in the mid-late 2000s. That was largely a generated event, which moved huge amounts of money into the pockets of some, w/o much of the even illegal activity being punished (let alone how much of what should have been illegal, was legal!).
The dot-com boom/bust in the late 90s was similar, though more driven by silliness around new technology and marketing that wasn't properly understood (ie: time-tested principals were tossed out, with people thinking this was some magic new world).
It could be argued a similar thing is going on today (not necessarily in housing, but in debt, lack of regulation, the banks, etc.). I haven't followed it closely enough, but I've heard people talking about it. One of my economics professors (around 2010) warned of how precarious the $USD is, and what would happen if the US couldn't keep it propped up. (If you wonder why so many governments need toppling, look at their views on currency and alliance in terms of oil, etc.... a particular pattern will emerge.) The US can't keep that game up forever, especially as it crumbles from within. The sky may or may not be falling, but I'd use more caution now than I might have decades ago.
Comments
- Apple is likely the most consumer-focused of the bunch, which is why they have the highest consumer satisfaction ratings.
- They remove things as part of compromise decisions that they feel will benefit more overall than the niche users. Like SD cards (as a pro, I've always and only used CF).
- My Lightning cables last me many, many years, and hold up much better than my Monoprice or Amazon ones, which seem to fall apart at the connector.
- What product recalls are you referring to, exactly? The only recalls I can think of of late are all major car brands.
...The rest of your bullshit isn't worth reading. Sorry.
- Jesus are you daft? The Pencil is a small computer in pencil form-factor. Why do you expect it to be "free"? You do realize that means the price will be higher and every single iPad customer would be paying for it, when most of them probably don't need it -- that's why it's a specialized accessory.
- More stupidity on the legacy analog audio port -- Apple's hardware VP explained removing it created the space needed for water gaskets, bigger cameras modules (ex: non-Plus gained OIS), and a bigger battery. I'll take those any day of the week. Most people only use the freebie headphones in the box. Use an adapter if that isn't you. But you're stupid if you believe it means "forcing" you to use Apple MFI headphones -- use the fucking adapter or any pair of Bluetooth headphones in the world, dur.
- Nope, there is nothing sub-bar about iPhone batteries. The entire industry uses the same exact battery tech, tho Apple has better power efficiency due to custom hardware and software. ALL BATTERIES WEAR OUT, and the throttling is only after that point until you get your shit together and service the worn battery. Just like you do with a car.
- The new Mac mini has increased $150 from launch day after inflation, and ditched the mobile parts to gain desktop components and a high-speed I/O. And it doesn't have soldered RAM, durrrrr. You simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Again.
...Piss poor trolling, my guy.
No, your points and examples don't hold any water. If you wiped the smear off your glasses it might be clearer to you.
I hope you don't manage anyone's investments or money, for their sake. You're simply unhinged.
Do you have links?
Best case for Apple is buying most/all of the retail investors out, leaving the Berkshire Hathaways and institutional investors.
As for the bigger picture there's actually been quite a bit written about the new corporate tax laws, how the money is being "invested" (it's not) and the dangers our "new capitalism" is creating for the economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/opinion/ban-stock-buybacks.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/07/08/u-s-senators-challenge-the-s-e-c-on-share-buybacks/#691870ee38f8
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aalsin/2017/08/09/how-stock-buybacks-cause-economic-stagnation-a-qa-with-robert-ayres-and-michael-olenick/#7e7b46fa16dd
There's others you can find with a search if you're interested.
Thanks for the links.
Also buying Microsoft. Never got why they weren't included in FAANG. FAGMAN? Yeah, let's go with that.
Hopefully, they just get back to their solid core and grow naturally because they have good stuff. They seem to be trying way too hard.
That said, IMO, unless we're entering a worldwide economic collapse (a possibility?), their stock is undervalued right now due to silly speculation and misunderstanding.
And, as the saying also goes... if too many people don't buy it...
Agreed. All the reasons I've heard have been based on media hysteria silliness (regarding Apple, or otherwise).
Yes, but if I weren't in the Apple ecosystem, I wouldn't even consider any of Apple's 2nd-rate services. They are pretty directly tied. Now, can their services grow within that base assuming the base keeps growing or even stays level? Sure, there is lots of room to grow in that way if Apple starts improving the services. But, that's a big if given Apple's history on this stuff. (ie: they do hardware well, and traditionally did well with OS and some software. Their 'services' have typically been a mix of unreliable and/or corny.
We might have a difference in word intent here. Are we talking about consumer focused as in their product line is now squarely aimed at pop-culture consumers? Or, that they work the hardest to satisfy their customers? For example, as much as I dislike some aspects of Amazon, they are far more customer-service focused than Apple. They also probably sell more stuff to the average consumer.
Depends on if the world is starting to wake up or not and see through some of the propaganda. It wouldn't take a lot for the whole thing to come crumbling down. But, assuming the charade continues, the stock should go back up.
This again? Maybe Apple had valid (to them) reasons for removing it, but the BS about any kind of legacy associated with a 3.5mm analog jack kind of ruins it. Lightning will be legacy long before the 3.5mm jack.
Good points, and thanks for using scare-quotes, as it absolutely isn't about investing, and the system operating isn't capitalism. I'm just sad both terms are being so trashed by the foolery in the minds of most people.
As a shareholder, I love the buybacks. It’s a way to allow me to benefit from the company’s successes and only pay a 15% capital gains tax. It also allows them to raise the dividend without increasing the overall payout.
As for Amazon being more customer-focused, I think it’s easier to seem customer-focused with their business model. Amazon makes a surprisingly small profit from the millions of people people who buy things from Amazon.com, and it’s easier to generate happy customers if you don’t need to make a healthy profit from the business. It allows you to have low prices, big inventory, fast shipping, easy returns, etc. What they have done is still very impressive of course, but mostly in terms of logistics rather than catering to customers’ individual/unusual needs. Amazon makes a large portion of their profit from a much smaller number of customers with the AWS business, and this essentially subsidizes the other business lines. It’s easier to focus on the unusual/specific/individual needs of a small number of high-value customers than millions of high-margin (but less high-value) customers like those of Apple.
Do you think by doing so they've artificially manipulated the stock price to increase the booked value for your portfolio?
Do you believe the stock price would have been significantly lower had they not done so, and if so how much do you personally think it raised the price?
A stock buyback isn't paying you a dividend. Shareholders demand returns on their investments in the form of dividends which is a cost of equity – so the business is essentially paying for the privilege of accessing funds it isn't using. Buying back some or all of the outstanding shares can be a simple way to pay off investors and reduce the overall cost of capital.
If a company can't spend its cash fast enough in an efficient manner that would grow the company, using excess cash to buy back its own shares to not have to pay out those shareholders dividends is a perfectly fine use of cash which lowers their costs longer term.
And yes, it does produce more stock scarcity, thus keeping the price up. Manipulated is a strong word, but scarcity of an equity does drive up its value.
exhibit A, the housing collapse in the mid-late 2000s. That was largely a generated event, which moved huge amounts of money into the pockets of some, w/o much of the even illegal activity being punished (let alone how much of what should have been illegal, was legal!).
The dot-com boom/bust in the late 90s was similar, though more driven by silliness around new technology and marketing that wasn't properly understood (ie: time-tested principals were tossed out, with people thinking this was some magic new world).
It could be argued a similar thing is going on today (not necessarily in housing, but in debt, lack of regulation, the banks, etc.). I haven't followed it closely enough, but I've heard people talking about it. One of my economics professors (around 2010) warned of how precarious the $USD is, and what would happen if the US couldn't keep it propped up. (If you wonder why so many governments need toppling, look at their views on currency and alliance in terms of oil, etc.... a particular pattern will emerge.) The US can't keep that game up forever, especially as it crumbles from within. The sky may or may not be falling, but I'd use more caution now than I might have decades ago.