People are caterwauling on both sides of the fence, and not looking at the real picture here.
I am not responding to any specific comment, but I believe that Cook and Oppenheimer have failed terribly.
Not because they haven't grown the business. Not because they don't have serious innovations in the pipeline. Not because they're not passionate about the company or its products or its customers. Not because they aren't anything but superb managers of many aspects of the business. Not because they're disengaged from value creation. None of these.
I've said this many times before and will say it again. They're incredibly poor in conveying their sense of the future of the business, and more importantly, managing market expectations.
Let me explain. If I am a working-my-butt-off manager at Apple that delivered the incredible feat of selling 51M in iPhone sales last quarter, I am probably pretty pissed off and dejected tonight. My stock lost $45 per share in value. Why? The market expected me to deliver 55M. Just casually, as though 51M involved no blood, sweat, tears. And nobody out there, least of all Apple's senior leaders such as Cook and Oppenheimer, bothered to stick their necks out to try and manage or talk down such ridiculous expectations.
If you've spent half a day working for a real business, you'll know that there's nothing that can be more demoralizing.
That, in my book, is a major leadership failure on their part. Inexcusable.
What is Cook supposed to do? Come out and say that Wall Street's estimates are wildly inaccurate? How exactly could/should Cook have managed expectations? And what exactly should Cook be saying about the future? Apple is never going spill details on future products. People need to stop expecting that.
He obviously meant that AAPL is not a growth stock anymore. You can agree or disagree, but don't change the subject.
I didn't change the subject. I pointed to one specific sentence that he said... "Apple stock is now virtually the same as IBM and Microsoft". If he had just said that Apple is not currently a growth stock, I would've agreed with him. You'll notice I made no reply to the rest of his comment.
However, comparing Apple stock to IBM or Microsoft is foolish when you consider Apple's history of releasing disruptive products and where they are currently sitting in their product cycles as compared to IBM and Microsoft who are much smaller companies where IBM is entrenched in a different sub-industry from Apple and Microsoft has struggled to get traction in the same industry.
The comparison to IBM is so incredibly invalid that there's not much else to say about it. But compared to Microsoft, as far as the stock, Apple will cycle through periods of growth and slow downs, but as long as it continues to do what it has been doing for a long time now, it will see overall growth that outperforms the market. During the slow-downs it will rely on the benefits of a strong cash position and earnings. This differs greatly from Microsoft where the benefits of its position have been wasted on business units that lose billions (Kin, Surface, Bing, etc...). The net result of this is a stock that has stagnated and is almost half of what it was at its peak in 1999.
BTW: Both of you could add a little more to this community by growing up a little and stopping with the personal insults.
I had no great expectations that after hours trading would be any different than what it is.
Still, you'd think anyone criticizing Apple (for what ever shortcomings they perceive) could have long realized that they're in the 'Tock' segment of the iPhone product cycle.
Even with that, the iPhone 5S has still leap-frogged the cell phone industry with 64-bit SoC's (that will have far more 64-bit software in place once they incorporate (or need) system RAM to best utilize it) and fingerprint sensors that (I would guess) won't see the same level of *maturity* (including 64-bit system software) until 2015 (if that) from their Android competitors. I'm still wondering how SoC's in Android devices can mature, if they're already running at a 2.2 GHz clock rate. It wouldn't seem like there's much more headroom (if you want to take battery performance and heat issues into consideration), while the A7's 1.4 GHz clock rate handily beats them in single threaded performance and is relatively close in multi-threaded performance. I can only imagine the performance comparison if the clock rates (and system RAM) were identical on both devices.
Anyone can criticize all they want, but Apple made no pronouncements of a game changing product in 2013. From the after hours trading, you'd think they were waking from a six month hibernation (and are just realizing the potential of the products announced in that time period), despite having a record quarter. [Just WHAT kind of profits were they expecting??? And what other companies have the same high expectations, much less can surpass such unreasonable ones annually?] Apple has inferred that 2014 is the year to wait for a game changing product (and with that the next iteration of the iPhone). So, wait another year before unleashing another torrent of vitriol, though I would be far more grateful to see a game changing product from any naysayers (much less the level of mature integration on a variety of fronts (hastily copied by Apple's competitor's)) that will effortlessly bring about profits exceeding Apple's 2014 First Quarter Results.
Even if we're here again commenting on Apple's 2015 First Quarter Results, I'd much rather see a thoughtful, mature, game-changing product from ANY Apple competitor -- though I'd be surprised if that happens.
With an average of 418 stores, average revenue was $16.7 billion, up from $16.3 billion a year prior.
Can't possibly be right, unless I'm misunderstanding the wording.
If we're to take the average of 418 stores and multiply that by the "average revenue" of $16.7 billion, that suggests Apple had revenue, from its retail stores alone, of $6.98 trillion.
Is the second "average" not supposed to be there, or should it be "million" (though that may be low, as it suggests store revenue is only about $7 billion, and I think Apple said it derives a higher share of its revenue from the stores than that)?
Yeah, because I criticized an omelette, I'd have to be laying an egg too. How stupid smart.
Yes but if you criticize an omelette , you can sure make suggestions to improve it or you can cook one yourself. It's called constructive criticism. It's a lot more helpful rather than being a whiny ...
If the argument is that flat profits = no growth then how does one explain Amazon which basically has been running profitless for 17 years?
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
this is classic Wall Street hype. "someday!" but Amazon is a discount retailer, all the other stuff is a sideline. maybe someday it will equal or surpass Walmart, which would make it #1 - wow, what a future! so let's check reality (all from Yahoo Finance):
Walmart total year revenue: $475 billion with profit margin of 3.6% = net income to Common $17 billion, market cap of $240B, P/E 14.3.
Amazon total year revenue: $70 billion with profit margin of 0.2%% = net income to Common $0.13 billion, market cap of $177B, P/E 1400.0!
so Walmart sales are 6.5X Amazon, and its profits are 140X Amazon - yeah, lots of room for "growth" there!!! - but its market cap is only 1.4X Amazon's amazingly high value. well of course, Walmart hasn't been a "growth" stock for many years, but we all know Amazon will rule the world "someday."
folks if you don't see the market scam going on here (the smart guys there know), you must believe in the famous Wall Street tooth fairy.
for comparison, Apple total year revenue: $171 billion with profit margin of 22% = net income to Common $37 billion, market cap of $495B, P/E 13.9.
being in the premium hardware business instead of discount retail, Apple generates 2.2X the profits of Walmart even tho Walmart revenues are 2.7X of Apple's. but the P/E of both is very close, which makes good sense for a solid "investment" - not growth - stock.
i hope all the speculators here posing as investors, and all the growth stock hypesters bewailing Apple's maturity as 'just another' massive and massively successful giant corporation sink all their life savings into Amazon tomorrow. i'm sure "someday" you will get in return exactly what you deserve! believe!!
Ok, the profit and revenue beat the top line guidence, so the stock tank on numbers of iphone sold, shy of a few millions by idiots who didn't know China didn't start delivering the phones til Jamuary. These are the numbers before the end of last quarter. Why the funds or retail investors believe in analysts rather than the company's guidances? Similar in believing a cheap iphone and iwatch? Where Tim Cook already said it is an interesting product but nobody will wear watches and nonprescription glasses. People don't know how to think anymore.
this is classic Wall Street hype. "someday!" but Amazon is a discount retailer, all the other stuff is a sideline. maybe someday it will equal or surpass Walmart, which would make it #1 - wow, what a future! so let's check reality (all from Yahoo Finance):
Walmart total year revenue: $475 billion with profit margin of 3.6% = net income to Common $17 billion, market cap of $240B, P/E 14.3.
Amazon total year revenue: $70 billion with profit margin of 0.2%% = net income to Common $0.13 billion, market cap of $177B, P/E 1400.0!
so Walmart sales are 6.5X Amazon, and its profits are 140X Amazon - yeah, lots of room for "growth" there!!! - but its market cap is only 1.4X Amazon's amazingly high value. well of course, Walmart hasn't been a "growth" stock for many years, but we all know Amazon will rule the world "someday."
folks if you don't see the market scam going on here (the smart guys there know), you must believe in the famous Wall Street tooth fairy.
for comparison, Apple total year revenue: $171 billion with profit margin of 22% = net income to Common $37 billion, market cap of $495B, P/E 13.9.
being in the premium hardware business instead of discount retail, Apple generates 2.2X the profits of Walmart even tho Walmart revenues are 2.7X of Apple's. but the P/E of both is very close, which makes good sense for a solid "investment" - not growth - stock.
i hope all the speculators here posing as investors, and all the growth stock hypesters bewailing Apple's maturity as 'just another' massive and massively successful giant corporation sink all their life savings into Amazon tomorrow. i'm sure "someday" you will get in return exactly what you deserve! believe!!
Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year) is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).
Ok, the profit and revenue beat the top line guidence, so the stock tank on numbers of iphone sold, shy of a few millions by idiots who didn't know China didn't start delivering the phones til Jamuary. These are the numbers before the end of last quarter. Why the funds or retail investors believe in analysts rather than the company's guidances? Similar in believing a cheap iphone and iwatch? Where Tim Cook already said it is an interesting product but nobody will wear watches and nonprescription glasses. People don't know how to think anymore.
Unlike you, some people know how to listen, and they hear Apple's depressing guidance for next quarter. (yes, Apple's, not those nefarious analysts')
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
Also: While if you believe that AMZN is competing with WMT, it is very much a "startup", it is completely dominant in online retail, and has killed off whole industries (Borders, anyone? Remember that Borders and Barnes and Noble killed off independent book sellers, and then were killed off (almost, in the case of B&N) by Amazon.) Apple, though people here like its products, is in a very competitive marketplace, and a single disruptive product from one of its (quite well-funded) competitors could mean real trouble, so it has to work very hard just to stay ahead by a nose. When Jobs was in charge, people, rightly or wrongly, believed that he would nurture some way cool product and then market the daylights out of it, but that confidence is absent with Tim Cook and his team. Are people wrong about Tim and Co? Quite possible, but the proof of that is still to come -- every single one of Apple's products dates back to Jobs (yes, they have been improved). Now, one may argue that two years is not a very long time, but still, the burden of proof remains on Cook.
Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year) is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).
Amazon may well well grow rapidly in revenue. BUT it is in an inevitably low-margin business - mercilessly price competitive discount retail. so it can never generate profits at the same rate as Apple. at best it can hope to match Walmart's margins. that's not bad, but it's not great either.
the scam part of this is that "the market" - Wall Street hypsters - has already pushed up Amazon's stock price to a level as if it actually has already achieved such a future expectation, a point where only that level of completed growth could justify that price for the long term. suckers are paying a price for Amazon now that won't make "investment" sense for years ... or worse case, never. if something goes badly wrong for Amazon, that bubble will certainly pop.
if you want to "invest" in growth stocks and reap big rewards after several years of rapid growth, you already missed the boat for both Apple and Amazon. you should have bought Amazon at $50 in 2009, or Apple at $85 in 2008. their big price run ups are over. you need to spot the next one.
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
Ah yes the typical Amazon spin, that they could be profitable but just choose not to be - for 17 years! How many other companies could get away with not showing profits for so many years? I mean it's not like other companies don't spend on R&D, market expansion, etc. To hear Amazon defenders talk you'd think there's no company like them ever in the history of corporations.
Comments
Both cop outs by lazy "thinkers". If you knew anything, you'd be running multi billion dollar company. Guys, it's easy to play with Monopoly money.
See post #73 above.
Yeah, because I criticized an omelette, I'd have to be laying an egg too. How
stupidsmart.He obviously meant that AAPL is not a growth stock anymore. You can agree or disagree, but don't change the subject.
I didn't change the subject. I pointed to one specific sentence that he said... "Apple stock is now virtually the same as IBM and Microsoft". If he had just said that Apple is not currently a growth stock, I would've agreed with him. You'll notice I made no reply to the rest of his comment.
However, comparing Apple stock to IBM or Microsoft is foolish when you consider Apple's history of releasing disruptive products and where they are currently sitting in their product cycles as compared to IBM and Microsoft who are much smaller companies where IBM is entrenched in a different sub-industry from Apple and Microsoft has struggled to get traction in the same industry.
The comparison to IBM is so incredibly invalid that there's not much else to say about it. But compared to Microsoft, as far as the stock, Apple will cycle through periods of growth and slow downs, but as long as it continues to do what it has been doing for a long time now, it will see overall growth that outperforms the market. During the slow-downs it will rely on the benefits of a strong cash position and earnings. This differs greatly from Microsoft where the benefits of its position have been wasted on business units that lose billions (Kin, Surface, Bing, etc...). The net result of this is a stock that has stagnated and is almost half of what it was at its peak in 1999.
BTW: Both of you could add a little more to this community by growing up a little and stopping with the personal insults.
I had no great expectations that after hours trading would be any different than what it is.
Still, you'd think anyone criticizing Apple (for what ever shortcomings they perceive) could have long realized that they're in the 'Tock' segment of the iPhone product cycle.
Even with that, the iPhone 5S has still leap-frogged the cell phone industry with 64-bit SoC's (that will have far more 64-bit software in place once they incorporate (or need) system RAM to best utilize it) and fingerprint sensors that (I would guess) won't see the same level of *maturity* (including 64-bit system software) until 2015 (if that) from their Android competitors. I'm still wondering how SoC's in Android devices can mature, if they're already running at a 2.2 GHz clock rate. It wouldn't seem like there's much more headroom (if you want to take battery performance and heat issues into consideration), while the A7's 1.4 GHz clock rate handily beats them in single threaded performance and is relatively close in multi-threaded performance. I can only imagine the performance comparison if the clock rates (and system RAM) were identical on both devices.
Anyone can criticize all they want, but Apple made no pronouncements of a game changing product in 2013. From the after hours trading, you'd think they were waking from a six month hibernation (and are just realizing the potential of the products announced in that time period), despite having a record quarter. [Just WHAT kind of profits were they expecting??? And what other companies have the same high expectations, much less can surpass such unreasonable ones annually?] Apple has inferred that 2014 is the year to wait for a game changing product (and with that the next iteration of the iPhone). So, wait another year before unleashing another torrent of vitriol, though I would be far more grateful to see a game changing product from any naysayers (much less the level of mature integration on a variety of fronts (hastily copied by Apple's competitor's)) that will effortlessly bring about profits exceeding Apple's 2014 First Quarter Results.
Even if we're here again commenting on Apple's 2015 First Quarter Results, I'd much rather see a thoughtful, mature, game-changing product from ANY Apple competitor -- though I'd be surprised if that happens.
You have NO idea what you are talking about.
thanks. the depth of your reasoning is stunning.
You do realize that very few people want a larger iPhone. Globally the response to the large Androids has been very cool to say the least.
Some surveys would beg to differ. Significant shift towards large screen sizes by Android users.
https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_1396_Android_phone_sales_by_screen_size_n.jpg
When someone willfully misrepresents or is casually dismissive of thoughtful points (even if that person might disagree), all is fair game.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Can't possibly be right, unless I'm misunderstanding the wording.
If we're to take the average of 418 stores and multiply that by the "average revenue" of $16.7 billion, that suggests Apple had revenue, from its retail stores alone, of $6.98 trillion.
Is the second "average" not supposed to be there, or should it be "million" (though that may be low, as it suggests store revenue is only about $7 billion, and I think Apple said it derives a higher share of its revenue from the stores than that)?
Yes but if you criticize an omelette , you can sure make suggestions to improve it or you can cook one yourself. It's called constructive criticism. It's a lot more helpful rather than being a whiny ...
If the argument is that flat profits = no growth then how does one explain Amazon which basically has been running profitless for 17 years?
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
this is classic Wall Street hype. "someday!" but Amazon is a discount retailer, all the other stuff is a sideline. maybe someday it will equal or surpass Walmart, which would make it #1 - wow, what a future! so let's check reality (all from Yahoo Finance):
Walmart total year revenue: $475 billion with profit margin of 3.6% = net income to Common $17 billion, market cap of $240B, P/E 14.3.
Amazon total year revenue: $70 billion with profit margin of 0.2%% = net income to Common $0.13 billion, market cap of $177B, P/E 1400.0!
so Walmart sales are 6.5X Amazon, and its profits are 140X Amazon - yeah, lots of room for "growth" there!!! - but its market cap is only 1.4X Amazon's amazingly high value. well of course, Walmart hasn't been a "growth" stock for many years, but we all know Amazon will rule the world "someday."
folks if you don't see the market scam going on here (the smart guys there know), you must believe in the famous Wall Street tooth fairy.
for comparison, Apple total year revenue: $171 billion with profit margin of 22% = net income to Common $37 billion, market cap of $495B, P/E 13.9.
being in the premium hardware business instead of discount retail, Apple generates 2.2X the profits of Walmart even tho Walmart revenues are 2.7X of Apple's. but the P/E of both is very close, which makes good sense for a solid "investment" - not growth - stock.
i hope all the speculators here posing as investors, and all the growth stock hypesters bewailing Apple's maturity as 'just another' massive and massively successful giant corporation sink all their life savings into Amazon tomorrow. i'm sure "someday" you will get in return exactly what you deserve! believe!!
this is classic Wall Street hype. "someday!" but Amazon is a discount retailer, all the other stuff is a sideline. maybe someday it will equal or surpass Walmart, which would make it #1 - wow, what a future! so let's check reality (all from Yahoo Finance):
Walmart total year revenue: $475 billion with profit margin of 3.6% = net income to Common $17 billion, market cap of $240B, P/E 14.3.
Amazon total year revenue: $70 billion with profit margin of 0.2%% = net income to Common $0.13 billion, market cap of $177B, P/E 1400.0!
so Walmart sales are 6.5X Amazon, and its profits are 140X Amazon - yeah, lots of room for "growth" there!!! - but its market cap is only 1.4X Amazon's amazingly high value. well of course, Walmart hasn't been a "growth" stock for many years, but we all know Amazon will rule the world "someday."
folks if you don't see the market scam going on here (the smart guys there know), you must believe in the famous Wall Street tooth fairy.
for comparison, Apple total year revenue: $171 billion with profit margin of 22% = net income to Common $37 billion, market cap of $495B, P/E 13.9.
being in the premium hardware business instead of discount retail, Apple generates 2.2X the profits of Walmart even tho Walmart revenues are 2.7X of Apple's. but the P/E of both is very close, which makes good sense for a solid "investment" - not growth - stock.
i hope all the speculators here posing as investors, and all the growth stock hypesters bewailing Apple's maturity as 'just another' massive and massively successful giant corporation sink all their life savings into Amazon tomorrow. i'm sure "someday" you will get in return exactly what you deserve! believe!!
Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year) is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).
Ok, the profit and revenue beat the top line guidence, so the stock tank on numbers of iphone sold, shy of a few millions by idiots who didn't know China didn't start delivering the phones til Jamuary. These are the numbers before the end of last quarter. Why the funds or retail investors believe in analysts rather than the company's guidances? Similar in believing a cheap iphone and iwatch? Where Tim Cook already said it is an interesting product but nobody will wear watches and nonprescription glasses. People don't know how to think anymore.
Unlike you, some people know how to listen, and they hear Apple's depressing guidance for next quarter. (yes, Apple's, not those nefarious analysts')
So how’s it depressing?
Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market.
Also: While if you believe that AMZN is competing with WMT, it is very much a "startup", it is completely dominant in online retail, and has killed off whole industries (Borders, anyone? Remember that Borders and Barnes and Noble killed off independent book sellers, and then were killed off (almost, in the case of B&N) by Amazon.) Apple, though people here like its products, is in a very competitive marketplace, and a single disruptive product from one of its (quite well-funded) competitors could mean real trouble, so it has to work very hard just to stay ahead by a nose. When Jobs was in charge, people, rightly or wrongly, believed that he would nurture some way cool product and then market the daylights out of it, but that confidence is absent with Tim Cook and his team. Are people wrong about Tim and Co? Quite possible, but the proof of that is still to come -- every single one of Apple's products dates back to Jobs (yes, they have been improved). Now, one may argue that two years is not a very long time, but still, the burden of proof remains on Cook.
A well trained monkey could have taken over Apple and produced better results.
Would you like a banana then?
Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year) is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).
Amazon may well well grow rapidly in revenue. BUT it is in an inevitably low-margin business - mercilessly price competitive discount retail. so it can never generate profits at the same rate as Apple. at best it can hope to match Walmart's margins. that's not bad, but it's not great either.
the scam part of this is that "the market" - Wall Street hypsters - has already pushed up Amazon's stock price to a level as if it actually has already achieved such a future expectation, a point where only that level of completed growth could justify that price for the long term. suckers are paying a price for Amazon now that won't make "investment" sense for years ... or worse case, never. if something goes badly wrong for Amazon, that bubble will certainly pop.
if you want to "invest" in growth stocks and reap big rewards after several years of rapid growth, you already missed the boat for both Apple and Amazon. you should have bought Amazon at $50 in 2009, or Apple at $85 in 2008. their big price run ups are over. you need to spot the next one.