I couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I think Apple stock is a "Hold" despite the recent huge runup which would normally see me taking some profits. I could imagine them eventually making a one off cash disbursement to stock holders, since I can't see anyone Apple would want to buy that would require more than a fraction of the $30bn.
I don't think we'd want to see them make an acquisition anything close to that size anyway, even if a suitable candidate existed. Big mergers are a great way to reduce shareholder value in the near term, and they are of doubtful value in the long term. They hardly ever work out as planned.
I always get my ears cuffed whenever I suggest that Apple should be paying a dividend, but really they should. A one-time payout would be nice, but I've also suggested $1.00/share annually. That would be seen as a pretty generous dividend for a tech company, but it wouldn't even make a dent in the cash mountain. There's really no good reason for them not to do it.
I wonder if they are under any pressure from investors to do something with the cash. Given around 5% of Apple stock is held by Fidelity, that means Apple are sitting on, and apparently not doing much with, about $1.5bn of Fidelity's money.
I really doubt that Apple's financial investments are doing more poorly than some of Fidelity's fund managers...
I really doubt that Apple's financial investments are doing more poorly than some of Fidelity's fund managers...
I take your point, though given the main fund holder (Fidelity Growth Fund of America) has done 23% year to date, Apple will have done well to beat that!
My point is more that investors will want to see something done with that, other than hold it in cash, especially now we're in a down market. I wonder how long Apple will hold onto it.
The question is raised at every stockholder's meeting, and often in earning's report conference calls and quite frequently by analysts. Predictably, Apple doesn't say what they plan to do with the money. They say the issue of dividends has been discussed by the board (how could it not?) but I think that's just a generic response, and not otherwise meaningful.
The cash hoard has become Apple's elephant in the room. They don't need that much cash as a security blanket, and they could not possibly reinvest it more than a fraction of it responsibly on growth. So why does the board think it needs to get bigger and bigger? Eventually they're going to have come clean with the stockholders.
Just an aside - I am sure that Adobe must be a watching brief at Apple. It might have been of benefit to Apple for an independent, creative and market assertive Adobe to be producing important software at arm's length but at some point Apple might decide that they are being hindered by, for example, Flash having such a large mindshare, to the detriment of Apple's web intentions.
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
With a market cap of $17bn, Apple could make an all cash offer with some markup (which would need to be high in the current depressed market - Adobe shareholders would be likely to want a healthy markup to account for the fact the stock will fairly naturally go up as the market in general recovers).
Can't see it myself, but it's an interesting thought!
I really doubt that Apple's financial investments are doing more poorly than some of Fidelity's fund managers...
I don't think you have know what Fidelity Investments managers' returns have been or what Apple's investments are.
Last year, as we all know (although I wonder if you do), the stock market did very poorly. Apple Stock also did poorly. Fidelity investment managers did poorly.
My understanding is that Apple's investments are in cash or cash equivalents (from 10-K report "primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.") and do not pay a huge return but are very secure, low risk investments.
Fidelity managers dependent on the mutual funds goals and objectives have more risk to them and as such usually have higher returns for the most part but sometimes not.
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
It would require a substantial premium over current market value, and a willing board of directors.
For reasons that frankly escape me, a lot of people mention Adobe as a potential Apple takeover. I think it would be a disaster. For one thing, Apple would have to decide what to do with Adobe's Windows products. The couldn't very well stop making them, but if they don't, then what was the point of acquiring the company? I sure don't get it. Then you have the corporate culture issues. These are two very different companies. A match made in hell, if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juanm105
My understanding is that Apple's investments are in cash or cash equivalents (from 10-K report "primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.") and do not pay a huge return but are very secure, low risk investments.
Probably including a lot of commercial paper, I'd suppose. Not a bad business to be in, if you're a bank.
Just an aside - I am sure that Adobe must be a watching brief at Apple. It might have been of benefit to Apple for an independent, creative and market assertive Adobe to be producing important software at arm's length but at some point Apple might decide that they are being hindered by, for example, Flash having such a large mindshare, to the detriment of Apple's web intentions.
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
I've posted it before and often, but I was just going to post the same thing:
Apple should buy Adobe. Current Adobe Market Cap is 17.22B. Current share price is around 33.00. Outlook price is around 36.00/share.
Forget Flash... the creative app synergies and cutting the overlap would be enough to justify the buy.
My previous posts have stated more than enough reasons to make this a smart purchase on Apple's part... and while the Adobe board might not be so acceptable, the shareholders would love it.
Re: "... a match made in hell".
Adobe created their business and apps for the Mac FIRST in the day, and added a port to Windows later. Considering that Adobe has flipped that dev cycle (first Win, then Mac)... it certainly could be reversed again. No need to leave out the Windows user. Just make it be known as it was before, that Adobe programs run best on the Mac platform, because it makes full use of the underlying OS X architecture... which CS4 does not do presently.
PS. Because IMHO this merger would make logical sense... I don't expect it to hapen. Just wishing\
It is conceivable that MS could even benefit from an Apple takeover of Adobe! Less diversity in competition for their own web technologies.
MS has no viable webtech. Silverlight is a wash... as is Flash. HTML5 and open source standards and codecs is the future.
In this regard, even MS has seen the "light" sort of, by "trying" to make IE8 standards compliant. They can't do it 100%, without breaking their enterprise partners backs it seems. I still see IE6 being used in corp environments for only this reason, and many IT people have told me that they don't expect to change soon or even in the far future.
In this regard, even MS has seen the "light" sort of, by "trying" to make IE8 standards compliant. They can't do it 100%, without breaking their enterprise partners backs it seems. I still see IE6 being used in corp environments for only this reason, and many IT people have told me that they don't expect to change soon or even in the far future.
This is a sad, sad fact if true. IE6 is too immature a product to wager the future livelyhood of your company on. In this "interesting time" of internet browser standards development the only thing that will get you killed quick is staying put.
I couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I think Apple stock is a "Hold" despite the recent huge runup which would normally see me taking some profits. I could imagine them eventually making a one off cash disbursement to stock holders, since I can't see anyone Apple would want to buy that would require more than a fraction of the $30bn.
if you buy one share of apple and
If you factor in the only 25 bn of the 30 bn in cash reserves >>what is the share price ?
then factor in the real non-gaap amount and what is the final real appleshare price .
so dude what is the real apple share price ??
if you don't understand this then don't say hold .
Forget Flash... the creative app synergies and cutting the overlap would be enough to justify the buy.
Such as? Every buyout or merger is supposed to create these mythical "synergies," but they rarely do.
Quote:
My previous posts have stated more than enough reasons to make this a smart purchase on Apple's part... and while the Adobe board might not be so acceptable, the shareholders would love it.
I beg to differ. Want to see AAPL drop 20% in one day? That's the likely result of any announced merger plan. The markets know that these moves are risky. You have the merger of corporate cultures, management, as well as products. Even under the best of circumstances, this takes years to work through, years during which management is distracted from the company's primary mission. And that's if it works out at all, which often, it doesn't.
Quote:
Re: "... a match made in hell".
Adobe created their business and apps for the Mac FIRST in the day, and added a port to Windows later. Considering that Adobe has flipped that dev cycle (first Win, then Mac)... it certainly could be reversed again. No need to leave out the Windows user. Just make it be known as it was before, that Adobe programs run best on the Mac platform, because it makes full use of the underlying OS X architecture... which CS4 does not do presently.
If Apple wants Adobe to give the development of Mac products a higher priority, then they could do so FAR more cheaply and with FAR less risk by improving their partnership with Adobe. This is usually done with cash investments, which Apple has done elsewhere. You don't have to buy the company to get this.
No, Apple could not discontinue the any Windows products if they owned Adobe, but the very fact of Apple buying Adobe would naturally raise the question of Apple's commitment to the continued development of products for a competing platform in the minds of investors. This speculation would automatically degrade the value of the enterprise.
Apple has forecast a 70 percent increase in capital expenditures for the 2010 fiscal year, which one analyst has said could be a sign the Mac maker is investing in "strategic new infrastructure."
In his latest note to investors Monday, Robert Cihra, analyst with Caris & Company, noted that Apple's most recent Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has called for a major $1.9 billion in capital expenditures during the 2010 fiscal year. That's well up from the $1.1 billion the company spent in 2009.
While the number could be an example of Apple's traditionally conservative guidance given to investors, Cihra said it's also possible that the increased expenses could mean that Apple is planning for something big in the coming year.
"This year's 10K added wording for purchases of 'product tooling and manufacturing process equipment,' which could imply Apple reversing course to actually build certain products/components in-house," Cihra said. "Beyond that are signals of Apple investing in massive new data center capacity (e.g., North Carolina) that could support anything from iTunes/iPhone Apps through new 'cloud computing.'"
Earlier this year, Apple selected Maiden, N.C., as the location for its $1 billion server farm. The exact purpose of that data center has not been stated.
There's nothing new here.
Apple spent $1.1 B on capex last year and is planning $1.9 B this year. It was previously announced that they were going to add a $1.0 B server farm in NC, so that accounts for the difference.
The only thing remotely new is their comments about purchasing product tooling and manufacturing equipment. That doesn't say much though - I would be surprised if Apple didn't own the tooling that their manufacturing partners used even today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
They could start by inventing and releasing a portable consumer device in the $500-$7000 range. I don't care if it's a Netbook, Tablet, Apple-on-a-stick, whatever. The price differential between Macs and PCs is ridiculous. Look at yesterday's Best Buy Sunday flier . Blu ray is included on Sony and Toshiba laptops for $700!!!!!! And 500 Gb of storage!
Apple is doomed!!!! They MUST do what teckstud demands or they'll never survive past Christmas.
Are you really as slow as you appear on these boards? Apple doesn't HAVE to do anything. They're certainly not going to cave in to the demands of someone who insists that Apple has one everything wrong for the past 10 years - considering Apple's financial success, your insistence that they're wrong destroys any credibility you might have.
Get it through your head: Apple will compete in a market when ALL of the following criteria are met:
1. They can sell a product at a price customers will pay for and still make a reasonable profit.
2. The market must be one where customers are willing to pay a premium for ease of use or other Apple core strengths.
3. The product must be a high quality product - if Apple has to cut corners to make it hit the price points, it won't happen.
4. There must be some synergy with existing products.
If and when all those criteria are met, Apple will release a product. Until then, all the whining in the world won't change it.
Personally, I'm not convinced that they won't release a Netbook some day. They can make a great MacBook for $999, so it's conceivable to me that at some point they'll be able to make a smaller, lighter system in the $700 range. However, I know it won't happen until all of the above criteria are met (if ever).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
That would be amazing news in this era of deindustrialization in the US. You cannot have a vibrant middle class in an economy without a strong manufacturing sector. And you cannot have a strong manufacturing sector if you stop investing in the continuous development of highly efficient manufacturing systems and just surrender without a fight to the low-wage countries. Germany and Japan fought (and continue fighting) to keep their manufacturing sectors. We did not. This is the 'gift' given to us by generations of MBAs who were taught to treat technology and know-how as just another cost item that you can keep cutting down whenever short term profits are threatened.
While I agree with your sentiments (I quit an executive position at one point because I was directed to move manufacturing overseas when it would have been bad for our customers and the company- as well as the country), I don't believe there's any evidence that Apple will be getting into manufacturing. The statement was that they would be buying tooling and equipment. It is not at all unusual for a company to own the tooling even if someone else is making the product. That could very well be the situation here - Apple buys the tooling and sends it to Foxconn to use in manufacturing the product.
Apple spent $1.1 B on capex last year and is planning $1.9 B this year. It was previously announced that they were going to add a $1.0 B server farm in NC, so that accounts for the difference.
The only thing remotely new is their comments about purchasing product tooling and manufacturing equipment. That doesn't say much though - I would be surprised if Apple didn't own the tooling that their manufacturing partners used even today.
It's $1B spent in that county over 10 years that is required for the tax break. While I think the first year could easily be more than a 10th of that and I figure the equipment purchases will occur well outside the contract thus not being included in the $1B to be spent, I am not sure it would account for the different. This mostly sounds like increased costs from doing more business, especially after a recession.
I don't think you have know what Fidelity Investments managers' returns have been or what Apple's investments are.
Last year, as we all know (although I wonder if you do), the stock market did very poorly. Apple Stock also did poorly. Fidelity investment managers did poorly.
Index funds beat actively managed funds 72% of the time. This means a passive investment option in simply following the market beats using most fund managers. The worst part is that the 25% of fund managers that beat the indexes are different from year to year.
Quote:
My understanding is that Apple's investments are in cash or cash equivalents (from 10-K report "primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.") and do not pay a huge return but are very secure, low risk investments.
Which given the poor market did rather well in comparison, no?
Quote:
Fidelity managers dependent on the mutual funds goals and objectives have more risk to them and as such usually have higher returns for the most part but sometimes not.
Actually, they have lower returns for the most part than indexing at higher risk and fees...but yes, typically more than what Apple is making on short term paper unless you count the returns on locking in price for a half billion dollars worth flash purchases and watching competitors (comparatively) paying through the nose on the spot market.
In a couple years they can go buy Adobe and still have $30B in the bank. Which will be a better move than replicating MS's $32B one time dividend in 2004. Which did butkus for them.
I beg to differ. Want to see AAPL drop 20% in one day? That's the likely result of any announced merger plan. The markets know that these moves are risky.
How odd that Oracle didn't drop 20% in one day when it was announce they were buying Sun...
Apple buying Adobe isn't a disaster in the making. It's just not all that great. The market would treat it as a wash since Apple IS swimming in cash and Adobe has significant branding and IP value.
Comments
I couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I think Apple stock is a "Hold" despite the recent huge runup which would normally see me taking some profits. I could imagine them eventually making a one off cash disbursement to stock holders, since I can't see anyone Apple would want to buy that would require more than a fraction of the $30bn.
I don't think we'd want to see them make an acquisition anything close to that size anyway, even if a suitable candidate existed. Big mergers are a great way to reduce shareholder value in the near term, and they are of doubtful value in the long term. They hardly ever work out as planned.
I always get my ears cuffed whenever I suggest that Apple should be paying a dividend, but really they should. A one-time payout would be nice, but I've also suggested $1.00/share annually. That would be seen as a pretty generous dividend for a tech company, but it wouldn't even make a dent in the cash mountain. There's really no good reason for them not to do it.
I wonder if they are under any pressure from investors to do something with the cash. Given around 5% of Apple stock is held by Fidelity, that means Apple are sitting on, and apparently not doing much with, about $1.5bn of Fidelity's money.
I really doubt that Apple's financial investments are doing more poorly than some of Fidelity's fund managers...
I really doubt that Apple's financial investments are doing more poorly than some of Fidelity's fund managers...
I take your point, though given the main fund holder (Fidelity Growth Fund of America) has done 23% year to date, Apple will have done well to beat that!
My point is more that investors will want to see something done with that, other than hold it in cash, especially now we're in a down market. I wonder how long Apple will hold onto it.
The question is raised at every stockholder's meeting, and often in earning's report conference calls and quite frequently by analysts. Predictably, Apple doesn't say what they plan to do with the money. They say the issue of dividends has been discussed by the board (how could it not?) but I think that's just a generic response, and not otherwise meaningful.
The cash hoard has become Apple's elephant in the room. They don't need that much cash as a security blanket, and they could not possibly reinvest it more than a fraction of it responsibly on growth. So why does the board think it needs to get bigger and bigger? Eventually they're going to have come clean with the stockholders.
Just an aside - I am sure that Adobe must be a watching brief at Apple. It might have been of benefit to Apple for an independent, creative and market assertive Adobe to be producing important software at arm's length but at some point Apple might decide that they are being hindered by, for example, Flash having such a large mindshare, to the detriment of Apple's web intentions.
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
With a market cap of $17bn, Apple could make an all cash offer with some markup (which would need to be high in the current depressed market - Adobe shareholders would be likely to want a healthy markup to account for the fact the stock will fairly naturally go up as the market in general recovers).
Can't see it myself, but it's an interesting thought!
Can't see it myself, but it's an interesting thought!
It is conceivable that MS could even benefit from an Apple takeover of Adobe! Less diversity in competition for their own web technologies.
I really doubt that Apple's financial investments are doing more poorly than some of Fidelity's fund managers...
I don't think you have know what Fidelity Investments managers' returns have been or what Apple's investments are.
Last year, as we all know (although I wonder if you do), the stock market did very poorly. Apple Stock also did poorly. Fidelity investment managers did poorly.
My understanding is that Apple's investments are in cash or cash equivalents (from 10-K report "primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.") and do not pay a huge return but are very secure, low risk investments.
Fidelity managers dependent on the mutual funds goals and objectives have more risk to them and as such usually have higher returns for the most part but sometimes not.
With 30+ billion in cash, it's about time they start spending it!
On something other than legal bills you me.
I think 3.4 million Macs sold in Q1 2010 is a bit aggressive. I'd say more like 3.2 million.
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
It would require a substantial premium over current market value, and a willing board of directors.
For reasons that frankly escape me, a lot of people mention Adobe as a potential Apple takeover. I think it would be a disaster. For one thing, Apple would have to decide what to do with Adobe's Windows products. The couldn't very well stop making them, but if they don't, then what was the point of acquiring the company? I sure don't get it. Then you have the corporate culture issues. These are two very different companies. A match made in hell, if you ask me.
My understanding is that Apple's investments are in cash or cash equivalents (from 10-K report "primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.") and do not pay a huge return but are very secure, low risk investments.
Probably including a lot of commercial paper, I'd suppose. Not a bad business to be in, if you're a bank.
Except for Sandy Weill.
Heh, notice I said people who *have* 100 billion, not people who *used to have* 100 billion.
Just an aside - I am sure that Adobe must be a watching brief at Apple. It might have been of benefit to Apple for an independent, creative and market assertive Adobe to be producing important software at arm's length but at some point Apple might decide that they are being hindered by, for example, Flash having such a large mindshare, to the detriment of Apple's web intentions.
Adobe's market cap is currently 1/10th that of Apple's. Does someone here truly know what resources it would take for Apple to take control?
I've posted it before and often, but I was just going to post the same thing:
Apple should buy Adobe. Current Adobe Market Cap is 17.22B. Current share price is around 33.00. Outlook price is around 36.00/share.
Forget Flash... the creative app synergies and cutting the overlap would be enough to justify the buy.
My previous posts have stated more than enough reasons to make this a smart purchase on Apple's part... and while the Adobe board might not be so acceptable, the shareholders would love it.
Re: "... a match made in hell".
Adobe created their business and apps for the Mac FIRST in the day, and added a port to Windows later. Considering that Adobe has flipped that dev cycle (first Win, then Mac)... it certainly could be reversed again. No need to leave out the Windows user. Just make it be known as it was before, that Adobe programs run best on the Mac platform, because it makes full use of the underlying OS X architecture... which CS4 does not do presently.
PS. Because IMHO this merger would make logical sense... I don't expect it to hapen. Just wishing
It is conceivable that MS could even benefit from an Apple takeover of Adobe! Less diversity in competition for their own web technologies.
MS has no viable webtech. Silverlight is a wash... as is Flash. HTML5 and open source standards and codecs is the future.
In this regard, even MS has seen the "light" sort of, by "trying" to make IE8 standards compliant. They can't do it 100%, without breaking their enterprise partners backs it seems. I still see IE6 being used in corp environments for only this reason, and many IT people have told me that they don't expect to change soon or even in the far future.
In this regard, even MS has seen the "light" sort of, by "trying" to make IE8 standards compliant. They can't do it 100%, without breaking their enterprise partners backs it seems. I still see IE6 being used in corp environments for only this reason, and many IT people have told me that they don't expect to change soon or even in the far future.
This is a sad, sad fact if true. IE6 is too immature a product to wager the future livelyhood of your company on. In this "interesting time" of internet browser standards development the only thing that will get you killed quick is staying put.
I couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I think Apple stock is a "Hold" despite the recent huge runup which would normally see me taking some profits. I could imagine them eventually making a one off cash disbursement to stock holders, since I can't see anyone Apple would want to buy that would require more than a fraction of the $30bn.
if you buy one share of apple and
If you factor in the only 25 bn of the 30 bn in cash reserves >>what is the share price ?
then factor in the real non-gaap amount and what is the final real appleshare price .
so dude what is the real apple share price ??
if you don't understand this then don't say hold .
peace
http://forums.appleinsider.com/newth...=newthread&f=7
Forget Flash... the creative app synergies and cutting the overlap would be enough to justify the buy.
Such as? Every buyout or merger is supposed to create these mythical "synergies," but they rarely do.
My previous posts have stated more than enough reasons to make this a smart purchase on Apple's part... and while the Adobe board might not be so acceptable, the shareholders would love it.
I beg to differ. Want to see AAPL drop 20% in one day? That's the likely result of any announced merger plan. The markets know that these moves are risky. You have the merger of corporate cultures, management, as well as products. Even under the best of circumstances, this takes years to work through, years during which management is distracted from the company's primary mission. And that's if it works out at all, which often, it doesn't.
Re: "... a match made in hell".
Adobe created their business and apps for the Mac FIRST in the day, and added a port to Windows later. Considering that Adobe has flipped that dev cycle (first Win, then Mac)... it certainly could be reversed again. No need to leave out the Windows user. Just make it be known as it was before, that Adobe programs run best on the Mac platform, because it makes full use of the underlying OS X architecture... which CS4 does not do presently.
If Apple wants Adobe to give the development of Mac products a higher priority, then they could do so FAR more cheaply and with FAR less risk by improving their partnership with Adobe. This is usually done with cash investments, which Apple has done elsewhere. You don't have to buy the company to get this.
No, Apple could not discontinue the any Windows products if they owned Adobe, but the very fact of Apple buying Adobe would naturally raise the question of Apple's commitment to the continued development of products for a competing platform in the minds of investors. This speculation would automatically degrade the value of the enterprise.
Bad deal, all around.
Apple has forecast a 70 percent increase in capital expenditures for the 2010 fiscal year, which one analyst has said could be a sign the Mac maker is investing in "strategic new infrastructure."
In his latest note to investors Monday, Robert Cihra, analyst with Caris & Company, noted that Apple's most recent Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has called for a major $1.9 billion in capital expenditures during the 2010 fiscal year. That's well up from the $1.1 billion the company spent in 2009.
While the number could be an example of Apple's traditionally conservative guidance given to investors, Cihra said it's also possible that the increased expenses could mean that Apple is planning for something big in the coming year.
"This year's 10K added wording for purchases of 'product tooling and manufacturing process equipment,' which could imply Apple reversing course to actually build certain products/components in-house," Cihra said. "Beyond that are signals of Apple investing in massive new data center capacity (e.g., North Carolina) that could support anything from iTunes/iPhone Apps through new 'cloud computing.'"
Earlier this year, Apple selected Maiden, N.C., as the location for its $1 billion server farm. The exact purpose of that data center has not been stated.
There's nothing new here.
Apple spent $1.1 B on capex last year and is planning $1.9 B this year. It was previously announced that they were going to add a $1.0 B server farm in NC, so that accounts for the difference.
The only thing remotely new is their comments about purchasing product tooling and manufacturing equipment. That doesn't say much though - I would be surprised if Apple didn't own the tooling that their manufacturing partners used even today.
They could start by inventing and releasing a portable consumer device in the $500-$7000 range. I don't care if it's a Netbook, Tablet, Apple-on-a-stick, whatever. The price differential between Macs and PCs is ridiculous. Look at yesterday's Best Buy Sunday flier . Blu ray is included on Sony and Toshiba laptops for $700!!!!!! And 500 Gb of storage!
Apple is doomed!!!! They MUST do what teckstud demands or they'll never survive past Christmas.
Are you really as slow as you appear on these boards? Apple doesn't HAVE to do anything. They're certainly not going to cave in to the demands of someone who insists that Apple has one everything wrong for the past 10 years - considering Apple's financial success, your insistence that they're wrong destroys any credibility you might have.
Get it through your head: Apple will compete in a market when ALL of the following criteria are met:
1. They can sell a product at a price customers will pay for and still make a reasonable profit.
2. The market must be one where customers are willing to pay a premium for ease of use or other Apple core strengths.
3. The product must be a high quality product - if Apple has to cut corners to make it hit the price points, it won't happen.
4. There must be some synergy with existing products.
If and when all those criteria are met, Apple will release a product. Until then, all the whining in the world won't change it.
Personally, I'm not convinced that they won't release a Netbook some day. They can make a great MacBook for $999, so it's conceivable to me that at some point they'll be able to make a smaller, lighter system in the $700 range. However, I know it won't happen until all of the above criteria are met (if ever).
That would be amazing news in this era of deindustrialization in the US. You cannot have a vibrant middle class in an economy without a strong manufacturing sector. And you cannot have a strong manufacturing sector if you stop investing in the continuous development of highly efficient manufacturing systems and just surrender without a fight to the low-wage countries. Germany and Japan fought (and continue fighting) to keep their manufacturing sectors. We did not. This is the 'gift' given to us by generations of MBAs who were taught to treat technology and know-how as just another cost item that you can keep cutting down whenever short term profits are threatened.
While I agree with your sentiments (I quit an executive position at one point because I was directed to move manufacturing overseas when it would have been bad for our customers and the company- as well as the country), I don't believe there's any evidence that Apple will be getting into manufacturing. The statement was that they would be buying tooling and equipment. It is not at all unusual for a company to own the tooling even if someone else is making the product. That could very well be the situation here - Apple buys the tooling and sends it to Foxconn to use in manufacturing the product.
There's nothing new here.
Apple spent $1.1 B on capex last year and is planning $1.9 B this year. It was previously announced that they were going to add a $1.0 B server farm in NC, so that accounts for the difference.
The only thing remotely new is their comments about purchasing product tooling and manufacturing equipment. That doesn't say much though - I would be surprised if Apple didn't own the tooling that their manufacturing partners used even today.
It's $1B spent in that county over 10 years that is required for the tax break. While I think the first year could easily be more than a 10th of that and I figure the equipment purchases will occur well outside the contract thus not being included in the $1B to be spent, I am not sure it would account for the different. This mostly sounds like increased costs from doing more business, especially after a recession.
I don't think you have know what Fidelity Investments managers' returns have been or what Apple's investments are.
Last year, as we all know (although I wonder if you do), the stock market did very poorly. Apple Stock also did poorly. Fidelity investment managers did poorly.
Index funds beat actively managed funds 72% of the time. This means a passive investment option in simply following the market beats using most fund managers. The worst part is that the 25% of fund managers that beat the indexes are different from year to year.
My understanding is that Apple's investments are in cash or cash equivalents (from 10-K report "primarily in highly rated securities, generally with a minimum rating of single-A or equivalent.") and do not pay a huge return but are very secure, low risk investments.
Which given the poor market did rather well in comparison, no?
Fidelity managers dependent on the mutual funds goals and objectives have more risk to them and as such usually have higher returns for the most part but sometimes not.
Actually, they have lower returns for the most part than indexing at higher risk and fees...but yes, typically more than what Apple is making on short term paper unless you count the returns on locking in price for a half billion dollars worth flash purchases and watching competitors (comparatively) paying through the nose on the spot market.
In a couple years they can go buy Adobe and still have $30B in the bank. Which will be a better move than replicating MS's $32B one time dividend in 2004. Which did butkus for them.
I beg to differ. Want to see AAPL drop 20% in one day? That's the likely result of any announced merger plan. The markets know that these moves are risky.
How odd that Oracle didn't drop 20% in one day when it was announce they were buying Sun...
Apple buying Adobe isn't a disaster in the making. It's just not all that great. The market would treat it as a wash since Apple IS swimming in cash and Adobe has significant branding and IP value.