A company's purpose is to sell products and make money.
Apple sells tons of products and makes tons of money.
What does Wall Street expect?
Apple just sold 47 million iPhones in a single quarter... beating its old single-quarter record by 12 million units... and in the process generated billions of dollars in profit. It should be noted that Apple is currently the #2 smartphone manufacturer by units sales... but it's even more impressive because they only sell mid-range to high-end smartphones. They aren't propping up their sales numbers with a bunch of cheap, disposable phones.
I understand that when a company is "failing" you should blame the CEO.
Apple's MO **used to be** to not talk about future products, but to release fresh updates at a reasonable rate, which kept customers happy. Even though Apple was silent, you could trust that it was still in the game and that investing in APple products was not a dead end. That MO worked but it is entirely different than Apple's current MO for many of its product segments like the Mac Pro.
The *new* MO is to still not talk about future products, *and* to suddenly and inexplicably go YEARS without updates, as if the products were forgotten. That new MO is toxic to customers and to Apple's culture. Not giving a shit about a certain group of customers is not a sign of pursuing excellence.
1) Years without updates? :rolleyes:
2) There is article after article about Apple "dropping the ball" before, during, and now after Steve Jobs. Your selective memory over Apple's long history of not releasing products when you want them is pathetic. AI even predicted the Mac mini would be eliminated due to it's excessively long time between updates, as one example of many.
Apple's MO **used to be** to not talk about future products, but to release fresh updates at a reasonable rate, which kept customers happy.
...
The *new* MO is to still not talk about future products, *and* to suddenly and inexplicably go YEARS without updates
Apple went silent at the same time as a series of missteps (maps, production problems) and extended lull between significant updates or announcements.
So all we get to hear about for the last 7 months is their missteps with generous side of speculation. If Apple won't supply something positive to talk about, someone else will fill in the blanks.
A company's purpose is to sell products and make money.
Apple sells tons of products and makes tons of money.
What does Wall Street expect?
Apple just sold 47 million iPhones in a single quarter... beating its old single-quarter record by 12 million units... and in the process generated billions of dollars in profit. It should be noted that Apple is currently the #2 smartphone manufacturer by units sales... but it's even more impressive because they only sell mid-range to high-end smartphones. They aren't propping up their sales numbers with a bunch of cheap, disposable phones.
I understand that when a company is "failing" you should blame the CEO.
So... where are we right now?
On top of all that, Wall Street is currently valuing Apple at a paltry 6 time cash-adjusted earnings. That's about 1/3 of the AVERAGE stock on the market.
So even if Apple slows down to just becoming an average company, the share price needs to triple to be roughly equivalent to the rest of the market.
The valuation is truly insane.
But, then, I'm used to it. The media and business press has been telling lies about Apple for decades. In the 90s, it was all about how Macs were incompatible and unaffordable and how Apple was going to go out of business any day.
Isn't it fairly standard that when a giant corporation loses 45% of its value over the course of 5 months that shareholders and boards of directors tend to consider firing the CEO?
I mean, seriously, if Google lost 45% of its value and there were rumors Larry Page was on his way out, would AI write this kind of article? No, because he maybe should be on his way out.
On the other hand, I think everyone at Apple and most shareholders realize that canning Cook would be stupid in terms of the stock price, as it would make investors nervous that Apple will never find another "Steve Jobs type" who can drive the company's value up like Steve did. Would firing Cook start a carousel of CEOs and other execs? That question would probably know another 45% off of AAPL. I would assume that if they don't like what Tim's doing, they'd keep him on as a spokesperson with the CEO title and just dole his duties out to different people; create the perception of unity and stability while changing gears behind the scenes.
Maybe that's why I'm not on Facebook either. It creates some sort of perverse and unrealistic world where people can only give thumbs up to each other, yet you can't rate down comments that deserve to be rated down?
If somebody is a dumbass or if they write something really stupid, then they should be downrated.
I welcome the day when I can open this site and I see that certain comments have gotten -20 thumbdowns.
Totally agree! The other problem with AI is that when someone truly is a dumbass here, and makes totally moronic claims, and you call them out for being a total dumbass they report you to the AI censorship police who then take you to task for being open and honest! At least give us the thumbs down to use against these toilet bowl floaters and trolls! Especially now that it has been proven that Samesung pays people to go after their competitors in online forums!
Isn't it fairly standard that when a giant corporation loses 45% of its value over the course of 5 months that shareholders and boards of directors tend to consider firing the CEO?
I mean, seriously, if Google lost 45% of its value and there were rumors Larry Page was on his way out, would AI write this kind of article? No, because he maybe should be on his way out.
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
The amount of value chopped off the company was probably no more than 20% of what has been lost in this recent dump. Losing 60 billion and losing 300 billion represent different signals from the market regardless if the percentages are similar. Losing 300 billion says management actions or inactions have materially impaired future cash flows.
First off, it was not Apple's best quarter ever. It was a quarter with record revenue and record profits (by a narrow margin), but best quarter implies fundamentally improving underlying data... which there was none.
So, you're saying that the goal of a company is to NOT make money? And that it's leaders saying that a quarter with the best revenue and profits ever is somehow NOT the best? Wow, I'm glad that the government doesn't get a hold of this logic as it would use that to justify almost all that it does.
Isn't it fairly standard that when a giant corporation loses 45% of its value over the course of 5 months that shareholders and boards of directors tend to consider firing the CEO?
I mean, seriously, if Google lost 45% of its value and there were rumors Larry Page was on his way out, would AI write this kind of article? No, because he maybe should be on his way out.
Apple lost "stock market value"
They still generate billions of dollars in cold hard cash every month by selling great products.
It's the fickle stock market that's to blame for the "loss in value." I don't know how another CEO would fix that.
Maybe investors would be more comfortable investing in some other mobile device and computer company. Maybe a better performing mobile device and computer company.
The amount of value chopped off the company was probably no more than 20% of what has been lost in this recent dump. Losing 60 billion and losing 300 billion represent different signals from the market regardless if the percentages are similar. Losing 300 billion says management actions or inactions have materially impaired future cash flows.
This is a crock. You are reading more into a 300 billion dollar loss versus a 60 billion dollar loss as being something more than just a percentage because of the size of the number. Must be an economist right?
All Tim Cook needs to do is come out and say something that projects serious confidence along these lines. Not platitudes. Then back it up with serious action.
He's helming a company that's making record profits & revenue quarter after quarter. He doesn't need to cowtow to grandstanding & bluster.
So if Tim Cook should go, who should be his replacement? No one on MacRumors seems to be able to answer that question Maybe someone here will throw out names. Should it be someone inside Apple? Or an external candidate? Jack Dorsey? Should Apple buy Twitter and install Dick Costolo as CEO? Or Yahoo and Marissa Mayer? Should the bring Woz back or maybe have Larry Ellison take control of the board? What exactly does the anti-Tim brigade want?
Yep, he is a manager not a leader. Don't get me wrong this is not a bad thing, but to be a successful company, you need all the people on the bus and in the right seats. Apple needs another Steve, and Tim is not the right person nor is he in the right seat.
All Tim Cook needs to do is come out and say something that projects serious confidence along these lines. Not platitudes. Then back it up with serious action.
He's helming a company that's making record profits & revenue quarter after quarter. He doesn't need to cowtow to grandstanding & bluster.
"Grandstanding and bluster" was what SJ was doing in the quote I cut-and-pasted in that post? Why don't you go back and re-read what I wrote.
There's a simple reason for all this: Apple has a lot of cash. Wall Street wants that cash and will stop at nothing to get it. They don't care about the business, they don't care about the products, they don't care about the CEO, they don't care if Apple is still around in 5 years (or even next week). They just want the cash. It's driving them insane seeing all that cash locked up in a viable business. It'd be so much better for them if Apple was in crisis and the activists could move in and put that cash to work making Wall Street some quick money. Right now the market cap is way too high for anyone to exert any significant control over Apple, but if they can topple it, bring down the market cap, they can "liberate" Apple's cash.
Comments
Apple sells tons of products and makes tons of money.
What does Wall Street expect?
Apple just sold 47 million iPhones in a single quarter... beating its old single-quarter record by 12 million units... and in the process generated billions of dollars in profit. It should be noted that Apple is currently the #2 smartphone manufacturer by units sales... but it's even more impressive because they only sell mid-range to high-end smartphones. They aren't propping up their sales numbers with a bunch of cheap, disposable phones.
I understand that when a company is "failing" you should blame the CEO.
So... where are we right now?
1) Years without updates? :rolleyes:
2) There is article after article about Apple "dropping the ball" before, during, and now after Steve Jobs. Your selective memory over Apple's long history of not releasing products when you want them is pathetic. AI even predicted the Mac mini would be eliminated due to it's excessively long time between updates, as one example of many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k2director
Apple's MO **used to be** to not talk about future products, but to release fresh updates at a reasonable rate, which kept customers happy.
...
The *new* MO is to still not talk about future products, *and* to suddenly and inexplicably go YEARS without updates
Apple went silent at the same time as a series of missteps (maps, production problems) and extended lull between significant updates or announcements.
So all we get to hear about for the last 7 months is their missteps with generous side of speculation. If Apple won't supply something positive to talk about, someone else will fill in the blanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Some of us are (occasionally) glad to have you here!
That's good to hear, and some others would of course wish that I were banned, especially when the topic veers off into other certain areas.
My goal has never been to please all of the people, all of the time, so I am ok with that.
On top of all that, Wall Street is currently valuing Apple at a paltry 6 time cash-adjusted earnings. That's about 1/3 of the AVERAGE stock on the market.
So even if Apple slows down to just becoming an average company, the share price needs to triple to be roughly equivalent to the rest of the market.
The valuation is truly insane.
But, then, I'm used to it. The media and business press has been telling lies about Apple for decades. In the 90s, it was all about how Macs were incompatible and unaffordable and how Apple was going to go out of business any day.
Isn't it fairly standard that when a giant corporation loses 45% of its value over the course of 5 months that shareholders and boards of directors tend to consider firing the CEO?
I mean, seriously, if Google lost 45% of its value and there were rumors Larry Page was on his way out, would AI write this kind of article? No, because he maybe should be on his way out.
On the other hand, I think everyone at Apple and most shareholders realize that canning Cook would be stupid in terms of the stock price, as it would make investors nervous that Apple will never find another "Steve Jobs type" who can drive the company's value up like Steve did. Would firing Cook start a carousel of CEOs and other execs? That question would probably know another 45% off of AAPL. I would assume that if they don't like what Tim's doing, they'd keep him on as a spokesperson with the CEO title and just dole his duties out to different people; create the perception of unity and stability while changing gears behind the scenes.
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
That's good to hear, and some others would of course wish that I were banned, especially when the topic veers off into other certain areas.
My goal has never been to please all of the people, all of the time, so I am ok with that.
How about some of the people just once.
I'm kidding... really... just kidding...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
Everything dropped 45% of its value in late 2008, as for early 2008, Apple P/E was sky-high then, so it is not really comparable either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
The amount of value chopped off the company was probably no more than 20% of what has been lost in this recent dump. Losing 60 billion and losing 300 billion represent different signals from the market regardless if the percentages are similar. Losing 300 billion says management actions or inactions have materially impaired future cash flows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
First off, it was not Apple's best quarter ever. It was a quarter with record revenue and record profits (by a narrow margin), but best quarter implies fundamentally improving underlying data... which there was none.
So, you're saying that the goal of a company is to NOT make money? And that it's leaders saying that a quarter with the best revenue and profits ever is somehow NOT the best? Wow, I'm glad that the government doesn't get a hold of this logic as it would use that to justify almost all that it does.
Apple lost "stock market value"
They still generate billions of dollars in cold hard cash every month by selling great products.
It's the fickle stock market that's to blame for the "loss in value." I don't know how another CEO would fix that.
Maybe investors would be more comfortable investing in some other mobile device and computer company. Maybe a better performing mobile device and computer company.
What company would that be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Did AI write an article about Steve Jobs being fired when Apple dropped 40% in early 2008 or 45% of its value in late 2008, both under 2 months?
You can't compare Steve Jobs to Tim Cook.
Steve Jobs brought the company back from the dead and was untouchable because he was the company in a lot of ways.
Tim Cook is the guy that Steve recommended for the job. It's weird to assume he's got as long a leash as Steve had.
Also, the total value lost is what, 4 times as much this time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
The amount of value chopped off the company was probably no more than 20% of what has been lost in this recent dump. Losing 60 billion and losing 300 billion represent different signals from the market regardless if the percentages are similar. Losing 300 billion says management actions or inactions have materially impaired future cash flows.
This is a crock. You are reading more into a 300 billion dollar loss versus a 60 billion dollar loss as being something more than just a percentage because of the size of the number. Must be an economist right?
He's helming a company that's making record profits & revenue quarter after quarter. He doesn't need to cowtow to grandstanding & bluster.
It is what it is and the stock price shows it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Amhran
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
All Tim Cook needs to do is come out and say something that projects serious confidence along these lines. Not platitudes. Then back it up with serious action.
He's helming a company that's making record profits & revenue quarter after quarter. He doesn't need to cowtow to grandstanding & bluster.
"Grandstanding and bluster" was what SJ was doing in the quote I cut-and-pasted in that post? Why don't you go back and re-read what I wrote.
Great selective quoting of a post.......
There's a simple reason for all this: Apple has a lot of cash. Wall Street wants that cash and will stop at nothing to get it. They don't care about the business, they don't care about the products, they don't care about the CEO, they don't care if Apple is still around in 5 years (or even next week). They just want the cash. It's driving them insane seeing all that cash locked up in a viable business. It'd be so much better for them if Apple was in crisis and the activists could move in and put that cash to work making Wall Street some quick money. Right now the market cap is way too high for anyone to exert any significant control over Apple, but if they can topple it, bring down the market cap, they can "liberate" Apple's cash.