I like the way these stupid articles are always phrased as if the investors are actually important and that Apple should actually listen to what they say or do what they want to do. This has to be one of the biggest myths of Capitalism in general.
"The pressure is on!!!" Is it? Why does Apple have to please anyones (seriously mistaken and poorly thought out) expectations? Have they ever been right before? Why do they *have* to hit performance measures that are just inexpertly calculated guesses by outsiders who don't even have access to the companies basic financial information?
Especially in the case of Apple, if they actually did this (do what the investors want or expect), they would be POS company headed rapidly for the toilet.
Apple will keep on running itself the way it wants and you can invest or not. The day they actually care about the investors and stock holders and what they think about anything is the day you'll know the ride is over and you should sell all your Apple stock.
exactly right. as if the day traders and stock manipulators of Wall Street are the jury that issues the ultimate verdict about what's real. if that is what you think, buy Amazon and get what you deserve.
instead of us - consumers - who really make the choice that counts one at a time. or, to sum that up if you will, the marketplace. not the rumors, the bullshit surveys, the trash talk, and the pundits' intellectual masturbation that the web echo chamber has become addicted to. just the sales facts, which Apple provides routinely every three months. while most of its competitors - much hyped by Wall Street and the web, like Samsung and MS - don't even dare do that.
Yes, don't you know that Apple's future is tenuous? How dare Apple mismanage the company to have a record quarter and (by September) $156 billion in cash. What incompetency! When Apple can't keep products in stock, the market panics (supply chain problems). When Apple can keep products in stock, the market panics (demand must be down).
Analysts complain that Apple's products aren't inexpensive enough and yet when Apple releases new products with slightly lower margins, they freak out. They expect Apple to do something that no company has ever done: release a totally new type of product every year. Most companies are thrilled to have done this once in the life of the company and most will never do it at all. Apple has done it with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Furthermore, when Apple creates a new product category and then competitors swarm in, analysts panic because Apple no longer carries a monopoly in the market. Well gee whiz, you mean Apple has to compete and it won't have 100% of the market? The horrors.
My bet is that Apple announces a record quarter, the stock rises 3% for one day and then falls back. If it falls back much more, Apple should simply start buying back its own shares. Apple's stock price fall from $700 to $500 demonstrates that analysts and investors have no idea what they're doing. Is Apple worth 29% less than it was when it was $700? Ridiculous. Maybe those analysts and investors disappointed with Apple should buy Facebook.
This is it right here. This post is exactly right.
"AAPL you have to release cheaper product."
Then ..
"AAPL, why are your margins dwindling?"
Then ..
"Steve Jobs blah blah blah.."
I just want Cook to come on and end the call and say (yes with expletives) "Eff all of you analysts. Eff all you stock manipulators. And eff all your "sources." You don't know spit about what we do or what we're going to do. Stop effin trying." Then just hang up.
"And new, cheaper products like the iPad mini have caused concern among investors that the company's gross margins will slip."
Yet those same investors reward companies with almost nonexistent margins who sell cheap, bottom of the barrel knockoffs. And those same investors reward companies who lose money (Amazon). Go figure.
One thing we know for sure. No matter how great Apple's quarter was it will be characterized as a disappointing failure. For whatever reason the powers that be in the stock market have decided to cut AAPL down to size. I mean how long could a consumer electronics company have more market capitalization than an oil company. It never made much sense anyway. Hopefully, when AAPL is down to a more reasonable price the harping will stop. But the trolls will claim victory and declare Apple dead and buried, finis.
[...] Do you suddenly expect this trend to reverse, and one day for Mac sales to just suddenly explode while iOS sales shrink? I'm actually curious, because if someone sincerely believed this, I'd find it stunning.
Nope. What I said is that iOS success isn't going to last forever. The second part of the equation (Mac sales exploding) is unlikely -and I didn't say that- because Apple has neglected the Mac, so you can't expect to get revenue when you don't invest on your real assets. I did say, however, that the Mac is a far more solid value in the long term (and this is fact, you just cannot compare the strength of a computer whose adoption has been increasing and increasing for decades -just see the % of OSX web users-, to the explosive success of a toy with just a 5-year life), but, of course, no matter how strong a long-term value, if you neglect it, you trash it.
I used to say that there was no reason for a stock split, but I've changed my mind. About 68%$ of AAPL shares are owned by institutions - compared to something like 12% of all stocks. Institutions are far too likely to play "must sell to lock in gains before year end" games as well as other short term thinking. AAPL should split 10:1 so that individuals find it a more accessible stock.
Of course, the SEC needs to investigate for manipulation, as well. It is just not plausible to me that the endless negativism hasn't been fed by people with a vested interest in seeing the stock fall.
There has always been such a disconnect. There was a report a year or two ago that showed that Apple consistently beat its guidance by around 10-15% - yet the analysts were always surprised when Apple failed to meet their insane lofty estimates.
Not to mention that in the climate that has been generated about AAPL, even trivial negative news makes the stock drop by unreasonable amounts. Some of the big analysts said on Friday after close that Apple's iPhone sales were still strong - and the stock went up about 0.3 points. After this story hits the street, the stock is down 4.5 points. Negativism sells - and causes people to sell.
Google is 88% institution owned. No manipulation there. No stock split is necessary. Why would you want to decrease the value of stock? Investors should have gotten on the wagon 7 yrs ago if they wanted a "cheap" price. I don't know why analysts have to make up estimates when they can just look at the company's guidance.
Those ANALysts' estimates and guidance are still way too high. Apple will not beat those estimates and guidance. Clearly the street wants to keep pounding the stock.
Nope. What I said is that iOS success isn't going to last forever. The second part of the equation (Mac sales exploding) is unlikely -and I didn't say that- because Apple has neglected the Mac, so you can't expect to get revenue when you don't invest on your real assets. I did say, however, that the Mac is a far more solid value in the long term (and this is fact, you just cannot compare the strength of a computer whose adoption has been increasing and increasing for decades -just see the % of OSX web users-, to the explosive success of a toy with just a 5-year life), but, of course, no matter how strong a long-term value, if you neglect it, you trash it.
What are you talking about? The iphone business is worth more than MS. The iPhone is 5+ years old and is still selling like hot cakes. People replace phones every 2-3 yrs. people replace Macs every 4-7 years. The just refreshed the Mac line so how are they ignoring it.
Why isn't every single one of these reports an example of how
THE ANALYSTS FAILED YET AGAIN TO COME WITH ACCURATE PREDICTIONS
I expect to win the lottery every time I play and yet every time I lose I don't blame the lottery for failing the meet my expectations (well, okay a little bit).
On the contrary. The earnings will be far below expectation and the analysts will be all over how Apple is doomed and they were right that Apple is nothing without Steve, etc
Forget that they take Apple's reasonable guidance that is based on real data about past sales and upcoming plans as too conservative and give out expectations pulled from their posterior orifices that are 4-5 times Apple's guidance and based on reading tea leaves and dog poop.
Let's just not hope it's because of production problems, e.g. the iMac
41.5% margins for the next quarter? I don't think so. Apple has stated that margins are going down in the past, and if these analysts are saying the iPad mini is going to take some share away from the full sized iPad, (and mac mini production will go to the US?) I don't think margins are going to go back up. This will be one of the excuses for poor outlook.
Really hoping that they'll hint at what's coming to help with the share price. Apple is going to be fine, but this huge drop in the share price isn't good for he company image IMO (or my savings).
Daringfireball posted an article about how the big time traders would make a killing on options if Apple closed at $500 on 1/21/13. This was based on an article from November of 2012. Sure enough the stock on Friday closed at exactly $500. The fix was in. It doesn't matter what Apple does. The Street will spin it either positively or negatively, which ever way is needed to make money. So Apple could smash Street records, and the stock could still lose money. The previous mentioned article made it seem now if the stock raises again, some of the big wigs will make money.
As for production problems, that certainly could be a concern meeting numbers, but it wouldn't matter if the Street wants the stock to go up. Apple will say something like the problems have been addressed, and the money players will cheer. Of course, if the Street wants the stock to tank, production issues will make the stock drop.
Apple's margins always fluctuate. Apple experienced the same iPad Mini taking big brother iPad sales problem when it released the iPod Nano, which caused the sales of the original iPad to take a beating. Apple will manage margins like it always does: taking advantage of buying in bulk, investing in partners, and benefiting from the decrease of component prices. So, I don't see Apple's margins continuing to drop. It will sink resources into the Mini, and benefit from economies of sale.
Google is 88% institution owned. No manipulation there. No stock split is necessary. Why would you want to decrease the value of stock? Investors should have gotten on the wagon 7 yrs ago if they wanted a "cheap" price. I don't know why analysts have to make up estimates when they can just look at the company's guidance.
Google is 83% Institution owned, not 88%. And, frankly, I couldn't care less about Google.
As for decreasing the value of the stock, you're imagining things. On paper, a 10:1 split does not affect the stock value by one penny. However, it brings new investors into the fold (people who don't want to buy stocks in $500 chunks, but are willing to do so in $50 chunks). As long as that number is greater than zero, you have increased demand and no increase in supply - which would increase the share price.
More importantly, as I've already stated, heavy institutional ownership makes the stock subject to manipulation. For example, mutual funds have so much pressure to show gains by year end that December is a disaster for many stocks that have one well during the year. It also opens the possibility of direct manipulation - companies which own stock emphasizing the negative or the positive (whichever benefits them personally). Even without illegal market manipulation, it certainly creates a conflict of interest.
Individual investors are less likely to be able to accomplish that (who cares if John Doe at 123 Main Street says he's selling his Apple stock?).
There's all these rumors about Dell going private. Man some days I wish it was Apple that was going private. It's the most manipulated stock on the planet.
Nope. What I said is that iOS success isn't going to last forever. The second part of the equation (Mac sales exploding) is unlikely -and I didn't say that- because Apple has neglected the Mac, so you can't expect to get revenue when you don't invest on your real assets. I did say, however, that the Mac is a far more solid value in the long term (and this is fact, you just cannot compare the strength of a computer whose adoption has been increasing and increasing for decades -just see the % of OSX web users-, to the explosive success of a toy with just a 5-year life), but, of course, no matter how strong a long-term value, if you neglect it, you trash it.
Ah, but you are misunderstanding the upheaval in the computer industry. People have made that mistake before. Minicomputers would never become a serious computing platform because they could not do what mainframes could do, and they would fade away. Workstations couldn't do what minicomputers could do, and so they would fade away. Microcomputers would never be taken seriously because they were toys that couldn't do any real work. Laptops were useless because they were so much less powerful than desktops, that they would never be used for real work. Notebooks were not usable for business or other serious computing tasks because they weren't as powerful as laptops. And, of course, tablets are just another fad and toy, and will fade away after a few years, and notebooks will, again, become the primary computer used for work and play.
Yup, you sure don't understand the computing industry.
It was estimated that by 2015, tablet sales would overtake all laptop sales for that year. Now, they are saying it will happen this year. The numbers are there. We're not talking about netbooks, which were mainly a child of the Recession. This is very different. I can already do work on my iPad that I could just barely do 10 years ago on my Powermac. In two or three years, the iPad will be several times as powerful as it is now. Heck, my iPhone 5 is more powerful than the fastest G4 laptop Apple manufactured. In another year or so, the newest iPhone and iPad will be more powerful than the earlier generations of Intel laptops, and the earlier Intel Mac Pro machines.
Things are changing for sure. The largest companies and government agencies are abandoning their notebooks for tens of thousands of iPads. This doesn't indicate a fad, even if you may want to think so.
Nope. What I said is that iOS success isn't going to last forever. The second part of the equation (Mac sales exploding) is unlikely -and I didn't say that- because Apple has neglected the Mac, so you can't expect to get revenue when you don't invest on your real assets. I did say, however, that the Mac is a far more solid value in the long term (and this is fact, you just cannot compare the strength of a computer whose adoption has been increasing and increasing for decades -just see the % of OSX web users-, to the explosive success of a toy with just a 5-year life), but, of course, no matter how strong a long-term value, if you neglect it, you trash it.
I'm sorry, how how the hell has Apple 'neglected the Mac'? This is such an absurd, ridiculous, lazy meme that people with no sense of context, history, or perspective parrot. The Mac has seen more significant changes this year than in any previous year. Macbook Pros rebuilt from the ground up, with a screen resolution and quality unheard of in the industry. iMac completely redesigned, utterly pushing the envelope of whats possible in industrial design. What about software? Apple has moved to major yearly OSX updates, and OSX has seen more user facing changes and improvements in the past year than the last several years, with OSX/iOS integration completely changing dynamic between the different hardware. I expect the new OSX to be previewed in the near future, and the pace of OSX development is quicker than its ever been. Apple hasn't 'neglected' the Mac, it still takes it extremely seriously and is continually investing in the product lines. However, the reality, no matter how childishly you choose to denigrate them as toys, is that ultra easy to use mobile touch hardware with the future. Believe it or not, people don't really care about buying a phone/tablet that will last 10 years, and if you had a shred of insight into the pace of technology, you'd realize how assinine that request is, with ANY form of technology. How long of a 'shelf life' should a device have? My original 2007 iPhone still works perfectly. So does every single one after that. Should Apple have time travelled into the future and brought back today's chips, to make sure these devices are infinitely capable for an infinite amount of time? What exactly do you expect? Magic?
Why do you think Windows 8 is simply Windows 7 with a touch layer thrown on top, and shoved onto all hardware regardless of touch capabilities? I'd say Apple is respecting OSX much more seriously, and respecting what it is- a desktop OS. If they shoved touch panels onto Macs, would you then say they're not neglecting them? Or if they made Macs giant iOS machines? No, you'd be raging further. The truth is you have no idea what you actually want, and just lazily spout talking points like 'neglecting the mac' when this couldn't be further from the truth, when one actually objectively looks at the reality. If they were 'neglecting' them the MBP wouldn't still be the best and most advanced laptop on the planet.
Google is 83% Institution owned, not 88%. And, frankly, I couldn't care less about Google.
As for decreasing the value of the stock, you're imagining things. On paper, a 10:1 split does not affect the stock value by one penny. However, it brings new investors into the fold (people who don't want to buy stocks in $500 chunks, but are willing to do so in $50 chunks). As long as that number is greater than zero, you have increased demand and no increase in supply - which would increase the share price.
More importantly, as I've already stated, heavy institutional ownership makes the stock subject to manipulation. For example, mutual funds have so much pressure to show gains by year end that December is a disaster for many stocks that have one well during the year. It also opens the possibility of direct manipulation - companies which own stock emphasizing the negative or the positive (whichever benefits them personally). Even without illegal market manipulation, it certainly creates a conflict of interest.
Individual investors are less likely to be able to accomplish that (who cares if John Doe at 123 Main Street says he's selling his Apple stock?).
So that means that while individual stockholders were selling over the past 4 years of gains, hedge funds have held and bought more, leaving them the only ones who still believe in the long term for Apple.
I suggest a reverse split of 10:1 to get the stock price up high enough so Apple is no longer held by the fickle individual shareholders who just are there trying to make a quick buck.
Gee, when you forget about who you are being told to hate,it sure is easy to see an argument FOR institutional owners, isn't there? Or did you think they came to hold 70% of outstanding shares in some way other than buying, buying, and buying while others were selling?
So that means that while individual stockholders were selling over the past 4 years of gains, hedge funds have held and bought more, leaving them the only ones who still believe in the long term for Apple.
I suggest a reverse split of 10:1 to get the stock price up high enough so Apple is no longer held by the fickle individual shareholders who just are there trying to make a quick buck.
Gee, when you forget about who you are being told to hate, it sure is easy to see an argument FOR institutional owners, isn't there? Or did you think they came to hold 70% of outstanding shares in some way other than buying, buying, and buying while others were selling?
Well, these guys are like everyone else—they want profits on their investments. A problem the way these, and other investment houses work, is that they almost always have limits to the percentage of ownership in any investment vehicle. So if they are limited to having any one stock to no more than 8% of their investment, by their charter, then what happens when they reach that limit? If Apple is over 70% owned by institutions with these limits, what happens when most, or all, are fully vested in Apple stock?
One thing that happens is that the frenzied buying slows down dramatically. Then the stock price begins to waver. What happens when there is fear that large investment profits may be taxed at a higher level because of the "fiscal cliff"? We get a big sell off. What happens to the stock price, well, it tumbles. What happens when large corporate options traders have strike off prices that might not be met? I'm generalizing terribly here. They buy or sell off very large amounts of stock (which they are allowed to do) so that the stock price comes to where they need it to be to make those large profits, and not end up with losses. Is that manipulation? Sure, though some refuse to call it that because there isn't a coordinated effort, just the fact that many professional traders have the same ideas at the same time (surprise!). We had that on the 18th of this month last Friday. So we were being told that Friday would possibly be the last great opportunity to buy Apple stock at a bargain price.
I believe that many professional traders aren't really concerned about the long term future of a company at all. They are just looking at more immediate results for themselves. If that results in large movements of stock, they don't really care. After all, you can make large amounts of money whether a stock is going up or down.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I like the way these stupid articles are always phrased as if the investors are actually important and that Apple should actually listen to what they say or do what they want to do. This has to be one of the biggest myths of Capitalism in general.
"The pressure is on!!!" Is it? Why does Apple have to please anyones (seriously mistaken and poorly thought out) expectations? Have they ever been right before? Why do they *have* to hit performance measures that are just inexpertly calculated guesses by outsiders who don't even have access to the companies basic financial information?
Especially in the case of Apple, if they actually did this (do what the investors want or expect), they would be POS company headed rapidly for the toilet.
Apple will keep on running itself the way it wants and you can invest or not. The day they actually care about the investors and stock holders and what they think about anything is the day you'll know the ride is over and you should sell all your Apple stock.
exactly right. as if the day traders and stock manipulators of Wall Street are the jury that issues the ultimate verdict about what's real. if that is what you think, buy Amazon and get what you deserve.
instead of us - consumers - who really make the choice that counts one at a time. or, to sum that up if you will, the marketplace. not the rumors, the bullshit surveys, the trash talk, and the pundits' intellectual masturbation that the web echo chamber has become addicted to. just the sales facts, which Apple provides routinely every three months. while most of its competitors - much hyped by Wall Street and the web, like Samsung and MS - don't even dare do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Yes, don't you know that Apple's future is tenuous? How dare Apple mismanage the company to have a record quarter and (by September) $156 billion in cash. What incompetency! When Apple can't keep products in stock, the market panics (supply chain problems). When Apple can keep products in stock, the market panics (demand must be down).
Analysts complain that Apple's products aren't inexpensive enough and yet when Apple releases new products with slightly lower margins, they freak out. They expect Apple to do something that no company has ever done: release a totally new type of product every year. Most companies are thrilled to have done this once in the life of the company and most will never do it at all. Apple has done it with the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Furthermore, when Apple creates a new product category and then competitors swarm in, analysts panic because Apple no longer carries a monopoly in the market. Well gee whiz, you mean Apple has to compete and it won't have 100% of the market? The horrors.
My bet is that Apple announces a record quarter, the stock rises 3% for one day and then falls back. If it falls back much more, Apple should simply start buying back its own shares. Apple's stock price fall from $700 to $500 demonstrates that analysts and investors have no idea what they're doing. Is Apple worth 29% less than it was when it was $700? Ridiculous. Maybe those analysts and investors disappointed with Apple should buy Facebook.
This is it right here. This post is exactly right.
"AAPL you have to release cheaper product."
Then ..
"AAPL, why are your margins dwindling?"
Then ..
"Steve Jobs blah blah blah.."
I just want Cook to come on and end the call and say (yes with expletives) "Eff all of you analysts. Eff all you stock manipulators. And eff all your "sources." You don't know spit about what we do or what we're going to do. Stop effin trying." Then just hang up.
"And new, cheaper products like the iPad mini have caused concern among investors that the company's gross margins will slip."
Yet those same investors reward companies with almost nonexistent margins who sell cheap, bottom of the barrel knockoffs. And those same investors reward companies who lose money (Amazon). Go figure.
One thing we know for sure. No matter how great Apple's quarter was it will be characterized as a disappointing failure. For whatever reason the powers that be in the stock market have decided to cut AAPL down to size. I mean how long could a consumer electronics company have more market capitalization than an oil company. It never made much sense anyway. Hopefully, when AAPL is down to a more reasonable price the harping will stop. But the trolls will claim victory and declare Apple dead and buried, finis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
[...] Do you suddenly expect this trend to reverse, and one day for Mac sales to just suddenly explode while iOS sales shrink? I'm actually curious, because if someone sincerely believed this, I'd find it stunning.
Nope. What I said is that iOS success isn't going to last forever. The second part of the equation (Mac sales exploding) is unlikely -and I didn't say that- because Apple has neglected the Mac, so you can't expect to get revenue when you don't invest on your real assets. I did say, however, that the Mac is a far more solid value in the long term (and this is fact, you just cannot compare the strength of a computer whose adoption has been increasing and increasing for decades -just see the % of OSX web users-, to the explosive success of a toy with just a 5-year life), but, of course, no matter how strong a long-term value, if you neglect it, you trash it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
iOS used to save the day, and maybe it still does, although it won't last forever. The Mac is the real value in the long term.
In a parallel universe maybe. Not in this one.
Google is 88% institution owned. No manipulation there. No stock split is necessary. Why would you want to decrease the value of stock? Investors should have gotten on the wagon 7 yrs ago if they wanted a "cheap" price. I don't know why analysts have to make up estimates when they can just look at the company's guidance.
Those ANALysts' estimates and guidance are still way too high. Apple will not beat those estimates and guidance. Clearly the street wants to keep pounding the stock.
That will most certainly disappoint them!
THE ANALYSTS FAILED YET AGAIN TO COME WITH ACCURATE PREDICTIONS
I expect to win the lottery every time I play and yet every time I lose I don't blame the lottery for failing the meet my expectations (well, okay a little bit).
On the contrary. The earnings will be far below expectation and the analysts will be all over how Apple is doomed and they were right that Apple is nothing without Steve, etc
Forget that they take Apple's reasonable guidance that is based on real data about past sales and upcoming plans as too conservative and give out expectations pulled from their posterior orifices that are 4-5 times Apple's guidance and based on reading tea leaves and dog poop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OriginalG
Let's just not hope it's because of production problems, e.g. the iMac
41.5% margins for the next quarter? I don't think so. Apple has stated that margins are going down in the past, and if these analysts are saying the iPad mini is going to take some share away from the full sized iPad, (and mac mini production will go to the US?) I don't think margins are going to go back up. This will be one of the excuses for poor outlook.
Really hoping that they'll hint at what's coming to help with the share price. Apple is going to be fine, but this huge drop in the share price isn't good for he company image IMO (or my savings).
Daringfireball posted an article about how the big time traders would make a killing on options if Apple closed at $500 on 1/21/13. This was based on an article from November of 2012. Sure enough the stock on Friday closed at exactly $500. The fix was in. It doesn't matter what Apple does. The Street will spin it either positively or negatively, which ever way is needed to make money. So Apple could smash Street records, and the stock could still lose money. The previous mentioned article made it seem now if the stock raises again, some of the big wigs will make money.
As for production problems, that certainly could be a concern meeting numbers, but it wouldn't matter if the Street wants the stock to go up. Apple will say something like the problems have been addressed, and the money players will cheer. Of course, if the Street wants the stock to tank, production issues will make the stock drop.
Apple's margins always fluctuate. Apple experienced the same iPad Mini taking big brother iPad sales problem when it released the iPod Nano, which caused the sales of the original iPad to take a beating. Apple will manage margins like it always does: taking advantage of buying in bulk, investing in partners, and benefiting from the decrease of component prices. So, I don't see Apple's margins continuing to drop. It will sink resources into the Mini, and benefit from economies of sale.
Google is 83% Institution owned, not 88%. And, frankly, I couldn't care less about Google.
As for decreasing the value of the stock, you're imagining things. On paper, a 10:1 split does not affect the stock value by one penny. However, it brings new investors into the fold (people who don't want to buy stocks in $500 chunks, but are willing to do so in $50 chunks). As long as that number is greater than zero, you have increased demand and no increase in supply - which would increase the share price.
More importantly, as I've already stated, heavy institutional ownership makes the stock subject to manipulation. For example, mutual funds have so much pressure to show gains by year end that December is a disaster for many stocks that have one well during the year. It also opens the possibility of direct manipulation - companies which own stock emphasizing the negative or the positive (whichever benefits them personally). Even without illegal market manipulation, it certainly creates a conflict of interest.
Individual investors are less likely to be able to accomplish that (who cares if John Doe at 123 Main Street says he's selling his Apple stock?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
... pulled from their posterior orifices that are 4-5 times Apple's guidance and based on reading tea leaves and dog poop.
I heard a guy the other day reading dog poop on his shoe. It wasn't pretty.
Ah, but you are misunderstanding the upheaval in the computer industry. People have made that mistake before. Minicomputers would never become a serious computing platform because they could not do what mainframes could do, and they would fade away. Workstations couldn't do what minicomputers could do, and so they would fade away. Microcomputers would never be taken seriously because they were toys that couldn't do any real work. Laptops were useless because they were so much less powerful than desktops, that they would never be used for real work. Notebooks were not usable for business or other serious computing tasks because they weren't as powerful as laptops. And, of course, tablets are just another fad and toy, and will fade away after a few years, and notebooks will, again, become the primary computer used for work and play.
Yup, you sure don't understand the computing industry.
It was estimated that by 2015, tablet sales would overtake all laptop sales for that year. Now, they are saying it will happen this year. The numbers are there. We're not talking about netbooks, which were mainly a child of the Recession. This is very different. I can already do work on my iPad that I could just barely do 10 years ago on my Powermac. In two or three years, the iPad will be several times as powerful as it is now. Heck, my iPhone 5 is more powerful than the fastest G4 laptop Apple manufactured. In another year or so, the newest iPhone and iPad will be more powerful than the earlier generations of Intel laptops, and the earlier Intel Mac Pro machines.
Things are changing for sure. The largest companies and government agencies are abandoning their notebooks for tens of thousands of iPads. This doesn't indicate a fad, even if you may want to think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
Nope. What I said is that iOS success isn't going to last forever. The second part of the equation (Mac sales exploding) is unlikely -and I didn't say that- because Apple has neglected the Mac, so you can't expect to get revenue when you don't invest on your real assets. I did say, however, that the Mac is a far more solid value in the long term (and this is fact, you just cannot compare the strength of a computer whose adoption has been increasing and increasing for decades -just see the % of OSX web users-, to the explosive success of a toy with just a 5-year life), but, of course, no matter how strong a long-term value, if you neglect it, you trash it.
I'm sorry, how how the hell has Apple 'neglected the Mac'? This is such an absurd, ridiculous, lazy meme that people with no sense of context, history, or perspective parrot. The Mac has seen more significant changes this year than in any previous year. Macbook Pros rebuilt from the ground up, with a screen resolution and quality unheard of in the industry. iMac completely redesigned, utterly pushing the envelope of whats possible in industrial design. What about software? Apple has moved to major yearly OSX updates, and OSX has seen more user facing changes and improvements in the past year than the last several years, with OSX/iOS integration completely changing dynamic between the different hardware. I expect the new OSX to be previewed in the near future, and the pace of OSX development is quicker than its ever been. Apple hasn't 'neglected' the Mac, it still takes it extremely seriously and is continually investing in the product lines. However, the reality, no matter how childishly you choose to denigrate them as toys, is that ultra easy to use mobile touch hardware with the future. Believe it or not, people don't really care about buying a phone/tablet that will last 10 years, and if you had a shred of insight into the pace of technology, you'd realize how assinine that request is, with ANY form of technology. How long of a 'shelf life' should a device have? My original 2007 iPhone still works perfectly. So does every single one after that. Should Apple have time travelled into the future and brought back today's chips, to make sure these devices are infinitely capable for an infinite amount of time? What exactly do you expect? Magic?
Why do you think Windows 8 is simply Windows 7 with a touch layer thrown on top, and shoved onto all hardware regardless of touch capabilities? I'd say Apple is respecting OSX much more seriously, and respecting what it is- a desktop OS. If they shoved touch panels onto Macs, would you then say they're not neglecting them? Or if they made Macs giant iOS machines? No, you'd be raging further. The truth is you have no idea what you actually want, and just lazily spout talking points like 'neglecting the mac' when this couldn't be further from the truth, when one actually objectively looks at the reality. If they were 'neglecting' them the MBP wouldn't still be the best and most advanced laptop on the planet.
Apple is the stock most owned by hedge funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Apple is the stock most owned by hedge funds.
So that means that while individual stockholders were selling over the past 4 years of gains, hedge funds have held and bought more, leaving them the only ones who still believe in the long term for Apple.
I suggest a reverse split of 10:1 to get the stock price up high enough so Apple is no longer held by the fickle individual shareholders who just are there trying to make a quick buck.
Gee, when you forget about who you are being told to hate, it sure is easy to see an argument FOR institutional owners, isn't there? Or did you think they came to hold 70% of outstanding shares in some way other than buying, buying, and buying while others were selling?
Well, these guys are like everyone else—they want profits on their investments. A problem the way these, and other investment houses work, is that they almost always have limits to the percentage of ownership in any investment vehicle. So if they are limited to having any one stock to no more than 8% of their investment, by their charter, then what happens when they reach that limit? If Apple is over 70% owned by institutions with these limits, what happens when most, or all, are fully vested in Apple stock?
One thing that happens is that the frenzied buying slows down dramatically. Then the stock price begins to waver. What happens when there is fear that large investment profits may be taxed at a higher level because of the "fiscal cliff"? We get a big sell off. What happens to the stock price, well, it tumbles. What happens when large corporate options traders have strike off prices that might not be met? I'm generalizing terribly here. They buy or sell off very large amounts of stock (which they are allowed to do) so that the stock price comes to where they need it to be to make those large profits, and not end up with losses. Is that manipulation? Sure, though some refuse to call it that because there isn't a coordinated effort, just the fact that many professional traders have the same ideas at the same time (surprise!). We had that on the 18th of this month last Friday. So we were being told that Friday would possibly be the last great opportunity to buy Apple stock at a bargain price.
I believe that many professional traders aren't really concerned about the long term future of a company at all. They are just looking at more immediate results for themselves. If that results in large movements of stock, they don't really care. After all, you can make large amounts of money whether a stock is going up or down.