@gatorguy - I agree with you. In fact, I am using this analyst report as the final straw in my decision to buy a T-Mobile iPhone5. I figure that I just might get 5 months use out of it before buying into the next version.
@jdnc123. Enough with your rambling. Only the iMac was constrained. As for delays, wasn't the white iPhone delayed during Jobs tenure? Also, what other delays, I don't remember Apple announcing a ship date for these future products.
Can you also source Foxconn's numbers. They haven't announced anything yet either. More FUD from analysts and trolls.
Maybe if you had a clue that the drop in sales is actually confirmed and coming right from the horses mouth and not 'analysts and trolls' you wouldn't look so out of touch with reality. Who really is a troll. Someone referencing a statement from the company that sales massively missed expectations or some clown who doesn't even know that the statement was announced and claims it wasn't to make himself look smart but does just the opposite by doing so?
So this guy doesn't expect a Mac Pro redesign in 2013? :no:
Further than that, Kuo predicted that the MBP was being discontinued in June of 2012. At about the same time, he stated that Apple would be introducing a retina MacBook (distinct from the MBA and MBP lines) in June, 2012. His track record is not very good. In fact, I can't find a single example where he predicted anything which later came true - other than the times where he as 'piling on' to rumors that everyone else was throwing around.
It would be stupid for Apple to launch several updated iOS models without an new iOS version. Two new iPhone's, iPad and iPad mini without a new version of iOS? Yeah that would be a great idea.
Yeah, stupid. Apple would NEVER introduce new hardware without a new OS to go with it. /s
I didn't miss any point. And, yes, things like the iPhone 3G supply constraints did lose them sales because customers could not buy new model iPhones. They were being turned away from AT&T because of it.
You were making a poor attempt at trolling and got called on it. The issue Apple has faced are no worse than they always have with both software and hardware being delayed, supply constraints for weeks on end for new product launches and reactive apologies to poor launches of services like MobileMe. Also, you bringing up larger screen iPhones is silly when Steve Jobs was adamant against larger screen iPhones for the longest time. Same with a small iPad. That you try to lump all these things as being Tim Cook issues is nothing but nonsense. Try harder with your trolling next time.
OK. You are right, losing $250 billion in value - which had never happened before in the history of the world during a bull market - has nothing to do with Apple or its future sales.
I didn't miss any point. And, yes, things like the iPhone 3G supply constraints did lose them sales because customers could not buy new model iPhones. They were being turned away from AT&T because of it.
You were making a poor attempt at trolling and got called on it. The issue Apple has faced are no worse than they always have with both software and hardware being delayed, supply constraints for weeks on end for new product launches and reactive apologies to poor launches of services like MobileMe. Also, you bringing up larger screen iPhones is silly when Steve Jobs was adamant against larger screen iPhones for the longest time. Same with a small iPad. That you try to lump all these things as being Tim Cook issues is nothing but nonsense. Try harder with your trolling next time.
Steve is dead. Move on. The company has lost value since Tim took over. That much is fact.
Steve is dead. Move on. The company has lost value since Tim took over. That much is fact.
That's funny because the facts don't bear you out. When Tim took over the market cap was $348 Billion. It is right now over $408 billion. Now unless you use some sort of different math than the rest of the world the figure from today is $60 billion larger than the figure when he took over. Didn't actually expect me to look that up, did you?
Steve is dead. Move on. The company has lost value since Tim took over. That much is fact.
The company has also gain market value since he took over. People like to point out the bad, never the good, I knew Steve, and I know Tim, he is a good Cheif Executive, Steve loved his company and he loved Tim, he left Tim in charge for a reason!
That's funny because the facts don't bear you out. When Tim took over the market cap was $348 Billion. It is right now over $408 billion. Now unless you use some sort of different math than the rest of the world the figure from today is 60 billion larger than the figure when he took over. Didn't actually expect me to look that up, did you?
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Why should I have to go look it up? That's right, because you've basically invented something out of whole cloth to try to win.
Tell me the exact formula and all input variables so that I can calculate this "enterprise value" for myself. Oh and please tell me specifically what it was prior to August 24, 2011 and what it is today. So that I can make sure I'm calculating it as you have.
The company needs to grow earnings for the stock to have any chance to go higher.
I can careless about "investors" in regards to Apple. As far as I care, the stock can get de-listed. I think that would help remove this stupid and needless distraction that has come about in recent years. (We can also hope the junk bond managers get de-listed as well.)
Apple is not having a problem with making a solid profit. Apple still has momentum and enough longevity insurance to keep the faith of those who are perfectly happy using their products.
In summary... Short sellers, Junk Bond Managers, and all of their kin can piss off. Those that are in for the long haul will do just find and that includes all types of Apple purchases be them on paper or in tangible products.
Wall Street doesn't care about Macs. They care about one thing: how many iPhones Apple sells.
It would be foolish to think that the iMac shortage in some way didn't impact the stock price. And no it's not only about iPhones it's about all iOS devices. Strong iPhone sales without strong iPad and iPad mini sales would cause the stock price to drop further. Wall Street cares about perception always have and always will.
Why should I have to go look it up? That's right, because you've basically invented something out of whole cloth to try to win.
Tell me the exact formula and all input variables so that I can calculate this "enterprise value" for myself. Oh and please tell me specifically what it was prior to August 24, 2011 and what it is today.
Invent? Its basic finance 101.
Value of Apple was 294 billion when Tim took over, 272 billion today.
Google value over same timeframe 127 billion to 217 billion
Samsung value over same timeframe 86 billion to 188 billion
I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to make money on the stock. If the value of the company goes up, the stock will follow. Yes, stock is up since Tim took over, but under his leadership, the value of the company has decreased while its two biggest competitors have massively increased. Fact.
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Guess what? That's nearly $60 billion higher. Looks like you're wrong again! Please shift the goalpost to another supposed metric that shows AAPL is worth less now than before Tim Cook took over.
Value of Apple was 294 billion when Tim took over, 272 billion today.
Google value over same timeframe 127 billion to 217 billion
Samsung value over same timeframe 86 billion to 188 billion
I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to make money on the stock. If the value of the company goes up, the stock will follow. Yes, stock is up since Tim took over, but under his leadership, the value of the company has decreased while its two biggest competitors have massively increased. Fact.
I can careless about "investors" in regards to Apple. As far as I care, the stock can get de-listed. I think that would help remove this stupid and needless distraction that has come about in recent years. (We can also hope the junk bond managers get de-listed as well.)
Apple is not having a problem with making a solid profit. Apple still has momentum and enough longevity insurance to keep the faith of those who are perfectly happy using their products.
In summary... Short sellers, Junk Bond Managers, and all of their kin can piss off. Those that are in for the long haul will do just find and that includes all types of Apple purchases be them on paper or in tangible products.
You or anyone who thinks Apple will ever go private are out of touch. This just in, shareholders own the company, not the employees or management, who own a paltry sum of shares. 'Junk Bond Managers'? I don't even know where to begin with that. Apple has no debt and it certainly wouldn't be high yield debt if they did.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
@jdnc123. Enough with your rambling. Only the iMac was constrained. As for delays, wasn't the white iPhone delayed during Jobs tenure? Also, what other delays, I don't remember Apple announcing a ship date for these future products.
Can you also source Foxconn's numbers. They haven't announced anything yet either. More FUD from analysts and trolls.
Hon Hai put out a statement yesterday:
http://www.foxconn.com/Message_En.html?index=7
Maybe if you had a clue that the drop in sales is actually confirmed and coming right from the horses mouth and not 'analysts and trolls' you wouldn't look so out of touch with reality. Who really is a troll. Someone referencing a statement from the company that sales massively missed expectations or some clown who doesn't even know that the statement was announced and claims it wasn't to make himself look smart but does just the opposite by doing so?
Further than that, Kuo predicted that the MBP was being discontinued in June of 2012. At about the same time, he stated that Apple would be introducing a retina MacBook (distinct from the MBA and MBP lines) in June, 2012. His track record is not very good. In fact, I can't find a single example where he predicted anything which later came true - other than the times where he as 'piling on' to rumors that everyone else was throwing around.
Yeah, stupid. Apple would NEVER introduce new hardware without a new OS to go with it. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
I didn't miss any point. And, yes, things like the iPhone 3G supply constraints did lose them sales because customers could not buy new model iPhones. They were being turned away from AT&T because of it.
You were making a poor attempt at trolling and got called on it. The issue Apple has faced are no worse than they always have with both software and hardware being delayed, supply constraints for weeks on end for new product launches and reactive apologies to poor launches of services like MobileMe. Also, you bringing up larger screen iPhones is silly when Steve Jobs was adamant against larger screen iPhones for the longest time. Same with a small iPad. That you try to lump all these things as being Tim Cook issues is nothing but nonsense. Try harder with your trolling next time.
OK. You are right, losing $250 billion in value - which had never happened before in the history of the world during a bull market - has nothing to do with Apple or its future sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
I didn't miss any point. And, yes, things like the iPhone 3G supply constraints did lose them sales because customers could not buy new model iPhones. They were being turned away from AT&T because of it.
You were making a poor attempt at trolling and got called on it. The issue Apple has faced are no worse than they always have with both software and hardware being delayed, supply constraints for weeks on end for new product launches and reactive apologies to poor launches of services like MobileMe. Also, you bringing up larger screen iPhones is silly when Steve Jobs was adamant against larger screen iPhones for the longest time. Same with a small iPad. That you try to lump all these things as being Tim Cook issues is nothing but nonsense. Try harder with your trolling next time.
Steve is dead. Move on. The company has lost value since Tim took over. That much is fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Steve is dead. Move on. The company has lost value since Tim took over. That much is fact.
That's funny because the facts don't bear you out. When Tim took over the market cap was $348 Billion. It is right now over $408 billion. Now unless you use some sort of different math than the rest of the world the figure from today is $60 billion larger than the figure when he took over. Didn't actually expect me to look that up, did you?
What sort of development issues are they talking about? Yeah, none!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
That's funny because the facts don't bear you out. When Tim took over the market cap was $348 Billion. It is right now over $408 billion. Now unless you use some sort of different math than the rest of the world the figure from today is 60 billion larger than the figure when he took over. Didn't actually expect me to look that up, did you?
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Why should I have to go look it up? That's right, because you've basically invented something out of whole cloth to try to win.
Tell me the exact formula and all input variables so that I can calculate this "enterprise value" for myself. Oh and please tell me specifically what it was prior to August 24, 2011 and what it is today. So that I can make sure I'm calculating it as you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
The company needs to grow earnings for the stock to have any chance to go higher.
I can careless about "investors" in regards to Apple. As far as I care, the stock can get de-listed. I think that would help remove this stupid and needless distraction that has come about in recent years. (We can also hope the junk bond managers get de-listed as well.)
Apple is not having a problem with making a solid profit. Apple still has momentum and enough longevity insurance to keep the faith of those who are perfectly happy using their products.
In summary... Short sellers, Junk Bond Managers, and all of their kin can piss off. Those that are in for the long haul will do just find and that includes all types of Apple purchases be them on paper or in tangible products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
It would be foolish to think that the iMac shortage in some way didn't impact the stock price. And no it's not only about iPhones it's about all iOS devices. Strong iPhone sales without strong iPad and iPad mini sales would cause the stock price to drop further. Wall Street cares about perception always have and always will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
Perhaps why there's the reports APPLE redirected some OS people over to the iOS side of things?
That could very well be the case which hopefully will work out well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Why should I have to go look it up? That's right, because you've basically invented something out of whole cloth to try to win.
Tell me the exact formula and all input variables so that I can calculate this "enterprise value" for myself. Oh and please tell me specifically what it was prior to August 24, 2011 and what it is today.
Invent? Its basic finance 101.
Value of Apple was 294 billion when Tim took over, 272 billion today.
Google value over same timeframe 127 billion to 217 billion
Samsung value over same timeframe 86 billion to 188 billion
I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to make money on the stock. If the value of the company goes up, the stock will follow. Yes, stock is up since Tim took over, but under his leadership, the value of the company has decreased while its two biggest competitors have massively increased. Fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Just to respond to this again from: http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value
August 23rd 2011 EV is $333.40 billion.
April 11th, 2013 EV is $392.88 billion.
Guess what? That's nearly $60 billion higher. Looks like you're wrong again! Please shift the goalpost to another supposed metric that shows AAPL is worth less now than before Tim Cook took over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Invent? Its basic finance 101.
Value of Apple was 294 billion when Tim took over, 272 billion today.
Google value over same timeframe 127 billion to 217 billion
Samsung value over same timeframe 86 billion to 188 billion
I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to make money on the stock. If the value of the company goes up, the stock will follow. Yes, stock is up since Tim took over, but under his leadership, the value of the company has decreased while its two biggest competitors have massively increased. Fact.
If it's basic Finance 101 then why do your figures not match up to these: http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value ?
"The never verified launch may face delays". But basically just so the analysts can cover the asses either way
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPilya
I can careless about "investors" in regards to Apple. As far as I care, the stock can get de-listed. I think that would help remove this stupid and needless distraction that has come about in recent years. (We can also hope the junk bond managers get de-listed as well.)
Apple is not having a problem with making a solid profit. Apple still has momentum and enough longevity insurance to keep the faith of those who are perfectly happy using their products.
In summary... Short sellers, Junk Bond Managers, and all of their kin can piss off. Those that are in for the long haul will do just find and that includes all types of Apple purchases be them on paper or in tangible products.
You or anyone who thinks Apple will ever go private are out of touch. This just in, shareholders own the company, not the employees or management, who own a paltry sum of shares. 'Junk Bond Managers'? I don't even know where to begin with that. Apple has no debt and it certainly wouldn't be high yield debt if they did.
Oh and Yahoo says that AAPL's current EV is $357.59 billion.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL
So it looks like it's not such a "Finance 101" thing is it since you say one thing and two different sources say something different.