Both Google and Amazon stocks are up 58% year-to-date; Microsoft is up 40%. If these companies have had a terrible year it's certainly not reflected in their stock price. Compare that with Apple which is up a paltry 5% year-to-date even though the S&P 500 is up 29% and the Nasdaq is up 38%. How is it that Google and Microsoft stock is up double digits if they had such a bad year?
I would really love to see a website that tracks the accuracy of analysts predictions along with pressure from the industry for media outlets to begin reporting the accuracy rating of an analyst when reporting their "rumors".
Ex: Gene Munster (D+) reports for Piper Jaffray (C-) that Apple will 100% ship a TV in the 2nd half of 2012.
Or
DigiTimes (F) reports that sales of Apple's flagship iPhone 5S are plummeting because reports from sources familiar with the matter state Apple has trimmed production at one of its plants that manufacture the glue that fuses the screen together.
I've never understood America's deference and embrace of CEO's. Most companies go out of business when the founder passes on and the so-called professional CEO's take over.
~90% of the time, CEO's end up running the company into the ground. Not straight away, usually.
It take a few CEO's in succession to get it completely wrong. Think of Apple after SJ was fired. Ugh!
Venerable companies like Ford, Boeing, McDonald's, Walmart, Coke, etc., are exceptions to the rule. And most of these companies got into trouble because of bad CEO's and survived in spite of the bad CEO's until a good CEO came along.
Look at the trouble and mismanagement HP, Sony, Nokia, BB and MS, for that matter, are in.
Their misfortunes can't all be blamed on Apple and the iPhone.
Apple/Tim Cook, Aston Martin/Dr. Bez are also exceptions to the rule.
E.g., Aston Martin has sold 65,000 cars in its 100 years in business.
50,000 of the 65,000 cars sold, were sold in the last 10 years. Pretty impressive. He was also chief engineer at Porsche and was told to design a "replacement" to the 911. He went back to the executive management and said, "No. We are going to continue to "improve" the 911." Brilliant.
That's where the money is. Apple made themselves money while Google and Microsoft made money for others. Though very ironic and against common sense it's a undeniable truth.
That's where the money is. Apple made themselves money while Google and Microsoft made money for others. Though very ironic and against common sense it's a undeniable truth.
Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Okay, someone help me out here. 9to5Mac has a story up about PC and tablet sales based on data from NPD. According to NPD data Google Chromebooks market share jumped over the past year while Apple and Windows PCs dropped. But how in the world can one draw the conclusion that Apple laptop sales are down because of Chromebooks? I have a hard time believing someone was looking at a $999 MacBook Air and decided on a $249 Chromebook instead.
It seems to me if anyone is taking a hit it's the cheap PC makers like HP, Dell, Acer etc. Number one none of those companies really have brand loyalty, and number two people who are price-sensitive were probably never looking at an Apple laptop in the first place. Also the fact that Microsoft is currently running a Scroogled campaign against Chromebooks pretty good indication of who is being hurt most by Chromebook sales.
http://9 to 5mac.com/2013/12/28/ipad-takes-top-spot-in-2013-tablet-market-but-macbooks-lose-out-to-google-powered-chromebooks/
Well, if you think the story of misleading tech reports has anything to do with research, good luck when you meet the Wizard of Oz. Samsung is thought to be spending huge amounts of money on dissing the iPhone. While Samsung are spending over $1 billion a year on marketing and advertising, this ain't gonna change. Tech website comments will continue to be inhabited by paid shills from Samsung, Google or Microsoft.
Say what? Mobile is Apple's bread and butter. Google and MS have been trying to also make money on mobile but they are failing miserably.
I should've been more clear. When I say mobile devices I mean hardware. Google doesn't care if it makes money on hardware; Apple does. Microsoft's problem is if it can't make money on software then it needs to make money on hardware, but they haven't proven that people are willing to buy their hardware. They started selling Surface with Apple like prices but we've seen how well that worked out. I think Google is a bigger threat to Microsoft than they are to Apple. What brand loyalty does Microsoft have? And now that most companies support BYOD, there's less of a reason for people to be invested in the Windows ecosystem.
Nice comparison. Almost all (well..maybe all) the tech writers and tech analysts are in the business for two basic reasons. Oddly enough these are the same two reasons that food writers/analysts, video critics/analysts, business writers/analysts, etc, etc are in the business:
1. They have (not want..have) to sell stuff to make that nasty old money.
2. They cannot actually produce anything of value (or do not have the cojones to try) and therefore are reduced to the business of telling everyone else what they think about whatever is their chosen topic.
History indicates that this has been true as long as there have been writers who write about what those who produce, those with ideas, those who innovate, are doing. And the best way to get their stuff to sell is to include large quantities of negative about whoever is a winner because the readers are interested in the titillation (OMG the sky is falling on xxxx company) that the winners may really be falling. the writers/analysts are also completely aware that the public who reads their drivel has a memory so short that the false and misleading articles they survive by writing are quickly forgotten...allowing them a continued and profitable existence.
So, it's pretty hard for me to expect any better in 2014.
A lot of truth to this actually. I have been following Apple for many many years. Analyst have always been all over the map so there was little that was inconsistent with them this past year.
However about a year and a half ago I started to notice a phenomena which reached fever pitch this year. The titles of articles written about Apple reported negative conclusions but the body of the article did not substantiate the title. The facts, usually buried at the end, were generally benign or positive for Apple yet the title had a negative twist.
I don't have any data to substantiate it, but my theory is with the latest web analytic tools authors are able to determine that negative titles got more clicks than benign of positive titles. Pavlov dictates more negative titles are required.
It doesn't help that many trading algorithms factor in article titles to predict the direction of a stock price
Very accurate assessment of 2013. I only hope that there are some real business journalists out there that will uncover a conspiracy in the business media that goes well beyond South Korean High School student astroturfing. The astroturfing has been occurring at so called "independent" research shops such as Strategy Analytics among others. They can't all be this stupid. I have to believe there is a brown paper bag or a Swiss bank account on the other end of it with Samsung's name on it. After all, a shady two-time convicted felon that loots Samsung subsidiary assets for his personal enrichment, pays astroturfers, cooks benchmark testing and pays celebrities to write negative tweets is running Samsung.
Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft.
Really? Did Apple create all that content for others to sell? No. They only provided the platform for content creators and service providers to make money for themselves in which Apple takes a cut.
Comments
You're relying on the stock market?
So have at it.
I've never understood America's deference and embrace of CEO's. Most companies go out of business when the founder passes on and the so-called professional CEO's take over.
~90% of the time, CEO's end up running the company into the ground. Not straight away, usually.
It take a few CEO's in succession to get it completely wrong. Think of Apple after SJ was fired. Ugh!
Venerable companies like Ford, Boeing, McDonald's, Walmart, Coke, etc., are exceptions to the rule. And most of these companies got into trouble because of bad CEO's and survived in spite of the bad CEO's until a good CEO came along.
Look at the trouble and mismanagement HP, Sony, Nokia, BB and MS, for that matter, are in.
Their misfortunes can't all be blamed on Apple and the iPhone.
Apple/Tim Cook, Aston Martin/Dr. Bez are also exceptions to the rule.
E.g., Aston Martin has sold 65,000 cars in its 100 years in business.
50,000 of the 65,000 cars sold, were sold in the last 10 years. Pretty impressive. He was also chief engineer at Porsche and was told to design a "replacement" to the 911. He went back to the executive management and said, "No. We are going to continue to "improve" the 911." Brilliant.
That's where the money is. Apple made themselves money while Google and Microsoft made money for others. Though very ironic and against common sense it's a undeniable truth.
Apple made money for content providers, musicians, App developers, accessory makers, advertisers, oh, and lots of component suppliers.
Apple also made money for Google and Microsoft.
The majority of Google's income is from advertising. How much did Google / Moto earn on devices?
MS made its money on Windows and Office. How much was made on Windows mobile and its devices.
It seems to me if anyone is taking a hit it's the cheap PC makers like HP, Dell, Acer etc. Number one none of those companies really have brand loyalty, and number two people who are price-sensitive were probably never looking at an Apple laptop in the first place. Also the fact that Microsoft is currently running a Scroogled campaign against Chromebooks pretty good indication of who is being hurt most by Chromebook sales.
http://9 to 5mac.com/2013/12/28/ipad-takes-top-spot-in-2013-tablet-market-but-macbooks-lose-out-to-google-powered-chromebooks/
Another great and informative article from AI & Team. Thank You All.
.
.
.
.
PS. Here's hopping 2014 will be the year of recovery for each and every AnalYeast and no more BS out of their A$$ about Apple. AMEN!
Surely, you can't be serious? The editorial was commenting on mobile devices.
And I will call you "Shirley".
Nice comparison. Almost all (well..maybe all) the tech writers and tech analysts are in the business for two basic reasons. Oddly enough these are the same two reasons that food writers/analysts, video critics/analysts, business writers/analysts, etc, etc are in the business:
1. They have (not want..have) to sell stuff to make that nasty old money.
2. They cannot actually produce anything of value (or do not have the cojones to try) and therefore are reduced to the business of telling everyone else what they think about whatever is their chosen topic.
History indicates that this has been true as long as there have been writers who write about what those who produce, those with ideas, those who innovate, are doing. And the best way to get their stuff to sell is to include large quantities of negative about whoever is a winner because the readers are interested in the titillation (OMG the sky is falling on xxxx company) that the winners may really be falling. the writers/analysts are also completely aware that the public who reads their drivel has a memory so short that the false and misleading articles they survive by writing are quickly forgotten...allowing them a continued and profitable existence.
So, it's pretty hard for me to expect any better in 2014.
A lot of truth to this actually. I have been following Apple for many many years. Analyst have always been all over the map so there was little that was inconsistent with them this past year.
However about a year and a half ago I started to notice a phenomena which reached fever pitch this year. The titles of articles written about Apple reported negative conclusions but the body of the article did not substantiate the title. The facts, usually buried at the end, were generally benign or positive for Apple yet the title had a negative twist.
I don't have any data to substantiate it, but my theory is with the latest web analytic tools authors are able to determine that negative titles got more clicks than benign of positive titles. Pavlov dictates more negative titles are required.
It doesn't help that many trading algorithms factor in article titles to predict the direction of a stock price
Fixed that for you. No fee required.
Roger, Roger.
Very accurate assessment of 2013. I only hope that there are some real business journalists out there that will uncover a conspiracy in the business media that goes well beyond South Korean High School student astroturfing. The astroturfing has been occurring at so called "independent" research shops such as Strategy Analytics among others. They can't all be this stupid. I have to believe there is a brown paper bag or a Swiss bank account on the other end of it with Samsung's name on it. After all, a shady two-time convicted felon that loots Samsung subsidiary assets for his personal enrichment, pays astroturfers, cooks benchmark testing and pays celebrities to write negative tweets is running Samsung.
Really? Did Apple create all that content for others to sell? No. They only provided the platform for content creators and service providers to make money for themselves in which Apple takes a cut.