Wall Street understand advertising. Amazon loses money because they want to. Bezos plows every dollar of profit back into the company and Wall Street understands that. They don’t understand Apple, never have, and never will. Apple doesn’t play by their rules. Investors are there to make money, not agree or disagree with the corporate culture, motives, ethics, vision, mission, etc. Investors make money when the stock price rises and dividends are high. AAPL has been trading in a narrow range almost all of 2013. No money to be made there... for an investor. AT&T trades within a narrow margin too but pays very good dividends.
Look, I agree that Apple is unique, makes excellent products that people like to buy, has always been the innovator the rest of the world looks to for what the future holds. Sales are rising, market share is declining, margins and profits are the envy of the tech industry, Apple is firing on all cylinders. Wall Street has always been about what can you do for me right now.” How can you reward me with money this instant.
Hello? Apple HAS NOT been trading in a narrow range through most of 2013. Those of us not born yesterday remember that it hit high $300 range not so long ago. As for investors, every pension fund/mutual fund is holding bucketfuls of AAPL, it is still one of the top two companies in the world by market cap, so I would not shed any tears for it.
All of Google's revenue come from search advertising, but they have no competition (I am not sure what their market share is, but it is probably in the 70% range at the very least). Dell is a PC company, but a consumer laptop is not really viewed as being in the same space as a server, and a monitor is not the same as either one of the two, so this analogy is specious.
Um, no, it's not specious. You said that Apple was a one trick pony because 60% of their revenues come from iPhones. That premise is patently incorrect, as 40% of their revenues come from other sources. However, to stay with you flawed premise, Google has a higher percentage of revenues coming from search than Apple has from iPhones. Market share is irrelevant to a one trick pony characterization. So, your original characterization of Apple is specious.
Helped by new iMac and MBA. The current MBA is very capable. When Broadwell arrives with even better GPU and GPGPU capabilities it will be a even better deal. I do hope Apple consider 6 or 8 GB Memory though for MBA.
Um, no, it's not specious. You said that Apple was a one trick pony because 60% of their revenues come from iPhones. That premise is patently incorrect, as 40% of their revenues come from other sources. However, to stay with you flawed premise, Google has a higher percentage of revenues coming from search than Apple has from iPhones. Market share is irrelevant to a one trick pony characterization. So, your original characterization of Apple is specious.
I did not say that Apple was a one trick pony, someone else did, but iPhone is a single product, not a product family, and there is a lot of competition in that space (unlike in search).
Helped by new iMac and MBA. The current MBA is very capable. When Broadwell arrives with even better GPU and GPGPU capabilities it will be a even better deal. I do hope Apple consider 6 or 8 GB Memory though for MBA.
I did not say that Apple was a one trick pony, someone else did, but iPhone is a single product, not a product family, and there is a lot of competition in that space (unlike in search).
The iPhone is a product family composed of the current products: 5S, 5C, 4S.
There is not a lot of US competition for Google but Google has significant regional competition in other countries and virtually no share in China (3%). Google's share in Korea is around 25%. Yahoo is amazingly #1 in Japan.
The iPhone is a product family composed of the current products: 5S, 5C, 4S.
There is not a lot of US competition for Google but Google has significant regional competition in other countries and virtually no share in China (3%). Google's share in Korea is around 25%. Yahoo is amazingly #1 in Japan.
Fair points all, but a family composed of three very similar products is not the same as selling servers, workstations, laptops (of various flavors), etc, etc. Re search, I am guessing (but correct me if I am wrong), that Google is also dominant in Europe, and in neither US or Europe is it threatened. As for Japan, I thought the Yahoo PORTAL was big in Japan, not so much search, but I could certainly be wrong.
Wall Street understand advertising. Amazon loses money because they want to. Bezos plows every dollar of profit back into the company and Wall Street understands that. They don’t understand Apple, never have, and never will. Apple doesn’t play by their rules. Investors are there to make money, not agree or disagree with the corporate culture, motives, ethics, vision, mission, etc. Investors make money when the stock price rises and dividends are high. AAPL has been trading in a narrow range almost all of 2013. No money to be made there... for an investor. AT&T trades within a narrow margin too but pays very good dividends.
Look, I agree that Apple is unique, makes excellent products that people like to buy, has always been the innovator the rest of the world looks to for what the future holds. Sales are rising, market share is declining, margins and profits are the envy of the tech industry, Apple is firing on all cylinders. Wall Street has always been about what can you do for me right now.” How can you reward me with money this instant.
since when is it okay for a for-profit company to lose money? Everyone says this about Amazon as though Bezos can just flip a and switch be profitable. And how is it that other companies can plow lots of $$ into R&D and infrastructure and still turn a profit. And how is it that Amazon's "plowing profit back into the business" is all expense. Wouldn't a lot of it be capitalized and depreciated over time, especially anything that has to do with land, buildings, equipment, etc. I'm sorry but I don't buy this "Amazon could be profitable if it wanted to" nonsense. Why is it that only Amazon seems to get away with no profits. And if I was an investor how long would I have to wait for profits to come?
Microsoft is ending support and security patches for Windows XP on April 8, I wonder if there will be a flood of people upgrading ancient computers? Apple should try to get them to switch, maybe with an ad campaign, because the XP-> OS X learning curve may be less than the XP -> Windows 8.1 curve.
Microsoft is ending support and security patches for Windows XP on April 8, I wonder if there will be a flood of people upgrading ancient computers? Apple should try to get them to switch, maybe with an ad campaign, because the XP-> OS X learning curve may be less than the XP -> Windows 8.1 curve.
1) I agree with everything you said and their targeted ads for Get A Mac when Vista bombed in the public eye appear to have boosted Mac switchers considerably, but for some reason they didn't do anything when Win 8 bombed so I don't have faith they will create new Mac ads even though I think they should.
2) Any chance MS will extend WinXP support yet again?
Mac sales don't count for hardly anything as far as Apple's revenue stream is concerned. It's all about iPhone market share and Apple is losing that in huge amounts. Apple shareholders will be lucky if Apple shares stay above $500. Apple is a joke of an investment. Google has a target price of around $1350 while Apple has a target price of around $590. One stock will reach it and the other won't. It's no secret that company with a CEO named Tim Cook is going repeat last year's share price fiasco. There's absolutely no growth left in Apple as long as they try to gain market share against Android. H-P is a wreck of a company but at least they're leading in PC sales. Over the last 52 weeks H-P stock has nearly doubled while Apple went up 2%. That's how poorly Wall Street thinks about Tim Cook's performance as a CEO. Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone six years ago and it's fortunate he's not around to see his company being turned into an industry joke.
Overall this is a totally ignorant comment but considering the source I am not surprised.
XP was very popular with Microsoft and maybe they will bring it back once again.
I thought XP was...ok, doable, endurable. But I was very surprised it didn't have a firewall nor DVD playback software, that was strangely omitted.
Of all their OS's, I'd say NT4 was the 'best'. Least intrusive, did what it could do. But still, that they never got rid of the Registry is beyond me. Among the many things, obviously.
Friend of mine has a Dell Latitude D830, running XP with IE8, which is all he needs; he only browses the web on that thing. After some websites don't work well anymore with IE8 I told him use his iPad, but he apparently comes across Flash sites often and says he wants 'the full web'. Whatever. So I reinstalled XP and IE8 cleanly, getting rid of all accumulated crap over the past 6 years but the darn thing still doesn't work right.
I think it won't matter much if MS is going to extend XP support or not; if websites move on using newer tech people will still be limited to IE8 on XP.
since when is it okay for a for-profit company to lose money? Everyone says this about Amazon as though Bezos can just flip a and switch be profitable. And how is it that other companies can plow lots of $$ into R&D and infrastructure and still turn a profit. And how is it that Amazon's "plowing profit back into the business" is all expense. Wouldn't a lot of it be capitalized and depreciated over time, especially anything that has to do with land, buildings, equipment, etc. I'm sorry but I don't buy this "Amazon could be profitable if it wanted to" nonsense. Why is it that only Amazon seems to get away with no profits. And if I was an investor how long would I have to wait for profits to come?
Your points are well taken, but AMZN is not alone. Consider, for example, Twitter. As far as I know, they don't even have a credible plan of how they might make money. Same is true of Tesla, and a whole bunch of other companies. What is a little surprising is that Bezos has convinced people that Amazon was a startup for the last fifteen years. Of course, Amazon does not actually lose money, it just does not make any.
Mac sales don't count for hardly anything as far as Apple's revenue stream is concerned. It's all about iPhone market share and Apple is losing that in huge amounts. Apple shareholders will be lucky if Apple shares stay above $500. Apple is a joke of an investment. Google has a target price of around $1350 while Apple has a target price of around $590. One stock will reach it and the other won't. It's no secret that company with a CEO named Tim Cook is going repeat last year's share price fiasco. There's absolutely no growth left in Apple as long as they try to gain market share against Android. H-P is a wreck of a company but at least they're leading in PC sales. Over the last 52 weeks H-P stock has nearly doubled while Apple went up 2%. That's how poorly Wall Street thinks about Tim Cook's performance as a CEO. Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone six years ago and it's fortunate he's not around to see his company being turned into an industry joke.
What a bunch of rubbish...
HP - trading today for around $27/share. Peaked in Jan 2000 at $66.28 then again in Jan 2010 at $53.15 and now, Jan 2014 around $27.00 Looks to me like they are way under water and there can be no comparison to Apple. Apple could buy them with pocket change and not even be a blip on the radar.
GOOG vs AAPL
GOOG Market cap of 376.13 B
AAPL market cap of 479.78 B
Divide APPL market cap by yesterdays close, and we get 894,244,390 shares (for illustration purposes)
Divide GOOG market cap by those 894,244,390 shares
GOOG price per share as compared to APPL would be $421/share vs APPL at $536/share
Your points are well taken, but AMZN is not alone. Consider, for example, Twitter. As far as I know, they don't even have a credible plan of how they might make money. Same is true of Tesla, and a whole bunch of other companies. What is a little surprising is that Bezos has convinced people that Amazon was a startup for the last fifteen years. Of course, Amazon does not actually lose money, it just does not make any.
I love Amazon as a company but I would never invest in them. I don't think I can say that about any other company I use often. It's such a weird position and I don't get their investors. It's like some goober hanging out with a hot chick who only wants to be friends and has told him she only wants to be friends but he thinks if he waits long enough in the friend zone she'll change her mind. Amazon investors still expect Amazon to become wildly profitable at some point.
Comments
Wall Street understand advertising. Amazon loses money because they want to. Bezos plows every dollar of profit back into the company and Wall Street understands that. They don’t understand Apple, never have, and never will. Apple doesn’t play by their rules. Investors are there to make money, not agree or disagree with the corporate culture, motives, ethics, vision, mission, etc. Investors make money when the stock price rises and dividends are high. AAPL has been trading in a narrow range almost all of 2013. No money to be made there... for an investor. AT&T trades within a narrow margin too but pays very good dividends.
Look, I agree that Apple is unique, makes excellent products that people like to buy, has always been the innovator the rest of the world looks to for what the future holds. Sales are rising, market share is declining, margins and profits are the envy of the tech industry, Apple is firing on all cylinders. Wall Street has always been about what can you do for me right now.” How can you reward me with money this instant.
Hello? Apple HAS NOT been trading in a narrow range through most of 2013. Those of us not born yesterday remember that it hit high $300 range not so long ago. As for investors, every pension fund/mutual fund is holding bucketfuls of AAPL, it is still one of the top two companies in the world by market cap, so I would not shed any tears for it.
All of Google's revenue come from search advertising, but they have no competition (I am not sure what their market share is, but it is probably in the 70% range at the very least). Dell is a PC company, but a consumer laptop is not really viewed as being in the same space as a server, and a monitor is not the same as either one of the two, so this analogy is specious.
Um, no, it's not specious. You said that Apple was a one trick pony because 60% of their revenues come from iPhones. That premise is patently incorrect, as 40% of their revenues come from other sources. However, to stay with you flawed premise, Google has a higher percentage of revenues coming from search than Apple has from iPhones. Market share is irrelevant to a one trick pony characterization. So, your original characterization of Apple is specious.
Helped by new iMac and MBA. The current MBA is very capable. When Broadwell arrives with even better GPU and GPGPU capabilities it will be a even better deal. I do hope Apple consider 6 or 8 GB Memory though for MBA.
Um, no, it's not specious. You said that Apple was a one trick pony because 60% of their revenues come from iPhones. That premise is patently incorrect, as 40% of their revenues come from other sources. However, to stay with you flawed premise, Google has a higher percentage of revenues coming from search than Apple has from iPhones. Market share is irrelevant to a one trick pony characterization. So, your original characterization of Apple is specious.
I did not say that Apple was a one trick pony, someone else did, but iPhone is a single product, not a product family, and there is a lot of competition in that space (unlike in search).
Helped by new iMac and MBA. The current MBA is very capable. When Broadwell arrives with even better GPU and GPGPU capabilities it will be a even better deal. I do hope Apple consider 6 or 8 GB Memory though for MBA.
I am pretty sure mine has 8GB...
I did not say that Apple was a one trick pony, someone else did, but iPhone is a single product, not a product family, and there is a lot of competition in that space (unlike in search).
The iPhone is a product family composed of the current products: 5S, 5C, 4S.
There is not a lot of US competition for Google but Google has significant regional competition in other countries and virtually no share in China (3%). Google's share in Korea is around 25%. Yahoo is amazingly #1 in Japan.
The iPhone is a product family composed of the current products: 5S, 5C, 4S.
There is not a lot of US competition for Google but Google has significant regional competition in other countries and virtually no share in China (3%). Google's share in Korea is around 25%. Yahoo is amazingly #1 in Japan.
Fair points all, but a family composed of three very similar products is not the same as selling servers, workstations, laptops (of various flavors), etc, etc. Re search, I am guessing (but correct me if I am wrong), that Google is also dominant in Europe, and in neither US or Europe is it threatened. As for Japan, I thought the Yahoo PORTAL was big in Japan, not so much search, but I could certainly be wrong.
Microsoft is ending support and security patches for Windows XP on April 8, I wonder if there will be a flood of people upgrading ancient computers? Apple should try to get them to switch, maybe with an ad campaign, because the XP-> OS X learning curve may be less than the XP -> Windows 8.1 curve.
1) I agree with everything you said and their targeted ads for Get A Mac when Vista bombed in the public eye appear to have boosted Mac switchers considerably, but for some reason they didn't do anything when Win 8 bombed so I don't have faith they will create new Mac ads even though I think they should.
2) Any chance MS will extend WinXP support yet again?
XP was very popular with Microsoft and maybe they will bring it back once again.
Mac sales don't count for hardly anything as far as Apple's revenue stream is concerned. It's all about iPhone market share and Apple is losing that in huge amounts. Apple shareholders will be lucky if Apple shares stay above $500. Apple is a joke of an investment. Google has a target price of around $1350 while Apple has a target price of around $590. One stock will reach it and the other won't. It's no secret that company with a CEO named Tim Cook is going repeat last year's share price fiasco. There's absolutely no growth left in Apple as long as they try to gain market share against Android. H-P is a wreck of a company but at least they're leading in PC sales. Over the last 52 weeks H-P stock has nearly doubled while Apple went up 2%. That's how poorly Wall Street thinks about Tim Cook's performance as a CEO. Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone six years ago and it's fortunate he's not around to see his company being turned into an industry joke.
Overall this is a totally ignorant comment but considering the source I am not surprised.
I thought XP was...ok, doable, endurable. But I was very surprised it didn't have a firewall nor DVD playback software, that was strangely omitted.
Of all their OS's, I'd say NT4 was the 'best'. Least intrusive, did what it could do. But still, that they never got rid of the Registry is beyond me. Among the many things, obviously.
Friend of mine has a Dell Latitude D830, running XP with IE8, which is all he needs; he only browses the web on that thing. After some websites don't work well anymore with IE8 I told him use his iPad, but he apparently comes across Flash sites often and says he wants 'the full web'. Whatever. So I reinstalled XP and IE8 cleanly, getting rid of all accumulated crap over the past 6 years but the darn thing still doesn't work right.
I think it won't matter much if MS is going to extend XP support or not; if websites move on using newer tech people will still be limited to IE8 on XP.
What's with the stupid pie charts. So basically everyone's numbers went up except "others", whoever that is.
You might want to look at them again.
Mac sales don't count for hardly anything as far as Apple's revenue stream is concerned.
Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone six years ago.
The 1st part is a double negative.
Either they don't count for anything OR they count for hardly anything.
Erm, 7 I think you'll find.
No other product has bought on a change in the market like the iPhone has.
Well he did say ... "Mac sales don't [sic] count for hardly anything as far as Apple's revenue stream is concerned. "
since when is it okay for a for-profit company to lose money? Everyone says this about Amazon as though Bezos can just flip a and switch be profitable. And how is it that other companies can plow lots of $$ into R&D and infrastructure and still turn a profit. And how is it that Amazon's "plowing profit back into the business" is all expense. Wouldn't a lot of it be capitalized and depreciated over time, especially anything that has to do with land, buildings, equipment, etc. I'm sorry but I don't buy this "Amazon could be profitable if it wanted to" nonsense. Why is it that only Amazon seems to get away with no profits. And if I was an investor how long would I have to wait for profits to come?
Your points are well taken, but AMZN is not alone. Consider, for example, Twitter. As far as I know, they don't even have a credible plan of how they might make money. Same is true of Tesla, and a whole bunch of other companies. What is a little surprising is that Bezos has convinced people that Amazon was a startup for the last fifteen years. Of course, Amazon does not actually lose money, it just does not make any.
Mac sales don't count for hardly anything as far as Apple's revenue stream is concerned. It's all about iPhone market share and Apple is losing that in huge amounts. Apple shareholders will be lucky if Apple shares stay above $500. Apple is a joke of an investment. Google has a target price of around $1350 while Apple has a target price of around $590. One stock will reach it and the other won't. It's no secret that company with a CEO named Tim Cook is going repeat last year's share price fiasco. There's absolutely no growth left in Apple as long as they try to gain market share against Android. H-P is a wreck of a company but at least they're leading in PC sales. Over the last 52 weeks H-P stock has nearly doubled while Apple went up 2%. That's how poorly Wall Street thinks about Tim Cook's performance as a CEO. Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone six years ago and it's fortunate he's not around to see his company being turned into an industry joke.
What a bunch of rubbish...
HP - trading today for around $27/share. Peaked in Jan 2000 at $66.28 then again in Jan 2010 at $53.15 and now, Jan 2014 around $27.00 Looks to me like they are way under water and there can be no comparison to Apple. Apple could buy them with pocket change and not even be a blip on the radar.
GOOG vs AAPL
I love Amazon as a company but I would never invest in them. I don't think I can say that about any other company I use often. It's such a weird position and I don't get their investors. It's like some goober hanging out with a hot chick who only wants to be friends and has told him she only wants to be friends but he thinks if he waits long enough in the friend zone she'll change her mind. Amazon investors still expect Amazon to become wildly profitable at some point.
PS: Amazon is busy washing its hair this weekend.
"My US market share - that's what's up!"