Apple, please set aside a $1 billion commitment per year for 5 years for mapping, and $100 million per year for 5 years for iWork. That's only $1.5 billion after 5 years but I think in that time you could make amazing strides in your products.
Apple, please set aside a $1 billion commitment per year for 5 years for mapping, and $100 million per year for 5 years for iWork. That's only $1.5 billion after 5 years but I think in that time you could make amazing strides in your products.
Does that account for what they have outside the US?
Couldn't agree more with spending more money on software.
You know what they're going to do with that cash pile don't you. Once it hits 500 billion, they'll buy all outstanding shares and take the company private. Then they won't have to put up with all the nonsense on Wall Street.
Spending the liquidity on what is in the best interest of Apple is in the Apple consumer's best interest.
You state the fundamental flaw in most everyone's argument on here. Customers do not own the company, the shareholders do. It doesn't matter if the company is public or private. A corporation owes a fiduciary duty to its owner, not its customer.
Customers do not own the company, the shareholders do.
Screw 'em. I don't see the shareholders making good decisions or doing any of the work. I see shareholding as a "last resort override" in accountability. Otherwise it's just an opportunity to make money by following what you believe.
Screw 'em. I don't see the shareholders making good decisions or doing any of the work. I see shareholding as a "last resort override" in accountability. Otherwise it's just an opportunity to make money by following what you believe.
That's what I say. The true investors are the consumers that spend their hard earned money buying Apple products and services time and time again, not the ones sitting idly buy holding a few pieces of paper.
You know what they're going to do with that cash pile don't you. Once it hits 500 billion, they'll buy all outstanding shares and take the company private. Then they won't have to put up with all the nonsense on Wall Street.
It's not worth spending that much to go private and it wouldn't be all at once. Most of the people who are stockholders now have contributed nothing to the company's success so why reward them with money Apple employees have earned?
It would be far better to just ignore that side of Apple and keep it from influencing the running of the company. They will buy back shares over time. Increasing the dividend can be good for Apple staff:
but many of them don't do it for the money and don't need it so if they don't increase it, it might encourage people to sell and allow them to buy back shares at a lower price.
I'd like to see them using their money for investments rather than payouts. The typical suggestions are for cheap products:
and while they can add value in many of those categories, it might not be enough to distinguish between high growth and me-too. Blackberry is going to face this problem now because they missed the growth and now it's me-too.
Even if they maintain the margins, the lower ASP means they have to vastly increase the volume or it's not worth doing.
The things I'd like to see Apple invest in are ones that offer long-term financial stability. That's in things like the software and media distribution because it adds to the things that compel people to buy into the eco-system. If they owned say Netflix, they'd have established content partners and a subscription base they could use to have a significant presence in movie and TV distribution. iOS devices could ship with the app and have free content as well as in-app purchases and subscriptions.
Amazon could really leverage that because they could do things like advertise kids toys when they watch kids TV shows. They actually bought the Lovefilm service, which is a rival to Netflix, probably because Netflix turned down their crappy offer:
Tim could take Steve's approach and just write down a big number on a piece of paper and get it done. They have over 30 million subscribers. With a bundled app on 100 million devices a year, they can massively increase that and use it as a platform for their keynotes and other media. They can have channels like Youtube but it would be high production value content. They could do it without Netflix but they'd hit the ground running by owning what they've established.
Because the entire eco-system is run by Apple, they can do things like link sharing so for example if you see a good TV show, you can iMessage or tweet a link to the show and clicking it on a Mac or iOS device can open the stream and encourage a subscription or pay-per-view purchase.
I'd like to see more investment in gaming too. I just think it's a major point of leverage on platforms. No matter how much people squabble about the merits of XBox and Playstation, you can't play Gears of War on the Playstation and you can't play Gran Tourismo on the XBox so the exclusivity compels the hardware purchase. Apple doesn't have enough of that exclusive content that is exclusive by their own actions. It would be so cheap for them to do this relative to what they earn and the return would be huge. Regardless of the feelings towards games, there are over 100 million gamers investing in AAA titles and the relevant hardware entirely separate from Apple's eco-system. They need to make the distribution more attractive to content providers by avoiding things like this too:
It's easy to throw out suggestions on how to spend money and they should make their spending decisions wisely but it's becoming clear they are either waiting to do something huge as Steve seems to have alluded to at one point or they just don't know what to do with it that will add value to the company. I'd say owning every kind of digital distribution is a good step to take. I'm not against the idea of a watch or a TV if they can do it right - sure it would be great to be in a meeting and see a text without pulling the phone out your pocket - but watches are much more about fashion than function and people like variety. The TV market is just saturated and isn't very high volume. Samsung's already the largest TV manufacturer and they make less profit than Apple even after including everything they do.
That's what I say. The true investors are the consumers that spend their hard earned money buying Apple products and services time and time again, not the ones sitting idly buy holding a few pieces of paper.
Nope. The consumers are the ones that make the investors money. You buy, I profit. For that I say thank you for making me a multimillionaire.
Comments
Apple, darned when they grow in cash. Darned when they drop in stock price.
Just wanna pluck the nuts off these analysts for screwing around.
Does that account for what they have outside the US?
How can this be?
It's all about market share and Apple is losing.
Sorry for the lapse, my brain fell out when I wrote that.
hey a removable brain would be pretty cool, then I could take it out and get a job as an analyst!
You know what they're going to do with that cash pile don't you. Once it hits 500 billion, they'll buy all outstanding shares and take the company private. Then they won't have to put up with all the nonsense on Wall Street.
You state the fundamental flaw in most everyone's argument on here. Customers do not own the company, the shareholders do. It doesn't matter if the company is public or private. A corporation owes a fiduciary duty to its owner, not its customer.
Originally Posted by msuberly
Customers do not own the company, the shareholders do.
Screw 'em. I don't see the shareholders making good decisions or doing any of the work. I see shareholding as a "last resort override" in accountability. Otherwise it's just an opportunity to make money by following what you believe.
That's what I say. The true investors are the consumers that spend their hard earned money buying Apple products and services time and time again, not the ones sitting idly buy holding a few pieces of paper.
Is it really affecting the company? Did it affect Apple in 2008 when the stock went down to $80?
It's not worth spending that much to go private and it wouldn't be all at once. Most of the people who are stockholders now have contributed nothing to the company's success so why reward them with money Apple employees have earned?
It would be far better to just ignore that side of Apple and keep it from influencing the running of the company. They will buy back shares over time. Increasing the dividend can be good for Apple staff:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/26/business/la-fi-apple-cook-20120526
but many of them don't do it for the money and don't need it so if they don't increase it, it might encourage people to sell and allow them to buy back shares at a lower price.
I'd like to see them using their money for investments rather than payouts. The typical suggestions are for cheap products:
http://news.yahoo.com/being-no-1-just-isn-t-enough-apple-151555424.html
and while they can add value in many of those categories, it might not be enough to distinguish between high growth and me-too. Blackberry is going to face this problem now because they missed the growth and now it's me-too.
Even if they maintain the margins, the lower ASP means they have to vastly increase the volume or it's not worth doing.
The things I'd like to see Apple invest in are ones that offer long-term financial stability. That's in things like the software and media distribution because it adds to the things that compel people to buy into the eco-system. If they owned say Netflix, they'd have established content partners and a subscription base they could use to have a significant presence in movie and TV distribution. iOS devices could ship with the app and have free content as well as in-app purchases and subscriptions.
Amazon could really leverage that because they could do things like advertise kids toys when they watch kids TV shows. They actually bought the Lovefilm service, which is a rival to Netflix, probably because Netflix turned down their crappy offer:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57527124-93/amazon-once-offered-to-buy-netflix-for-$12-million-book-says/
Tim could take Steve's approach and just write down a big number on a piece of paper and get it done. They have over 30 million subscribers. With a bundled app on 100 million devices a year, they can massively increase that and use it as a platform for their keynotes and other media. They can have channels like Youtube but it would be high production value content. They could do it without Netflix but they'd hit the ground running by owning what they've established.
Because the entire eco-system is run by Apple, they can do things like link sharing so for example if you see a good TV show, you can iMessage or tweet a link to the show and clicking it on a Mac or iOS device can open the stream and encourage a subscription or pay-per-view purchase.
I'd like to see more investment in gaming too. I just think it's a major point of leverage on platforms. No matter how much people squabble about the merits of XBox and Playstation, you can't play Gears of War on the Playstation and you can't play Gran Tourismo on the XBox so the exclusivity compels the hardware purchase. Apple doesn't have enough of that exclusive content that is exclusive by their own actions. It would be so cheap for them to do this relative to what they earn and the return would be huge. Regardless of the feelings towards games, there are over 100 million gamers investing in AAA titles and the relevant hardware entirely separate from Apple's eco-system. They need to make the distribution more attractive to content providers by avoiding things like this too:
http://mashable.com/2012/12/05/app-store-revenue-developers/
It's easy to throw out suggestions on how to spend money and they should make their spending decisions wisely but it's becoming clear they are either waiting to do something huge as Steve seems to have alluded to at one point or they just don't know what to do with it that will add value to the company. I'd say owning every kind of digital distribution is a good step to take. I'm not against the idea of a watch or a TV if they can do it right - sure it would be great to be in a meeting and see a text without pulling the phone out your pocket - but watches are much more about fashion than function and people like variety. The TV market is just saturated and isn't very high volume. Samsung's already the largest TV manufacturer and they make less profit than Apple even after including everything they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's what I say. The true investors are the consumers that spend their hard earned money buying Apple products and services time and time again, not the ones sitting idly buy holding a few pieces of paper.
Nope. The consumers are the ones that make the investors money. You buy, I profit. For that I say thank you for making me a multimillionaire.
****'em all you want. Just keep buying the products.