And, imho, Oppenheimer does not have a financial savvy to run a company of this size. They desperately need a new CFO who thinks like a strategist.
As you know, CFO's don't run companies. They certainly shouldn't be. My CFO would never have presumed to make decisions of thet nature. Running the company is the job of the CEO.
Large scale acquisitions are not what you think they are. If Apple, a $180 billion a year company, buys a $3 billion a year company for $8 billion, that's not considered to be a large scale acquisition.
A large scale acquisition is when a $30 billion a year company buys a $20 billion a year company. Or. $100 billion a year company buys $70 billion a year company. No one is advocating that. At least, I'm not.
I don't completely disagree with you. I'd love to see Apple buy Square. I hope it happens.
We need new thinking, not more regurgitated Steve Jobs thought. That era is over.
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately these days the thinking is Apple wouldn't be in the place it's in if Jobs was still around. I don't agree, but that's certainly what Wall Street thinks.
The problem Apple has now is they can never spend the money fast enough, unless they attempt to buy some stupidly large company and blow it on a company which it is not worth it. Wall Street tends favor stupid decision on purchases, The like the model of buy the market since most company can not grow into a market.
Well, if Cook stays at the top then I doubt if we are going to see too much change.
But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).
But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).
I can't speak for everyone else. I have always been unsure of Cook.
... but in the statement that you quoted I was not being either judgemental nor critical.
[... and the $700 peak was a bubble created by speculation. The price should have peaked at $550, imo]
Well, if Cook stays at the top then I doubt if we are going to see too much change.
Change does take some time. Apple has some time, but not too much time. We can see its product sales are up, except for the expected drop in iPod sales. But they aren't up by much. For example, I fully expected to see iPhone sales of upwards of 55 million. But it really needed to be upward of 60 million to keep pace. It wasn't.
I expected to see iPad sales above 30 million, actually around 32 million. But they were up to 29 million. Not enough.
Mac sales were up, but still 400,000 below their best year, I think, two years ago. So not enough there either.
Apple has always had the problem of coming out with smashing new products, well ahead of others—and then just sitting on them. Incremental improvements aren't enough when it just takes two or at the most, three years for competitors to work around the advantages, either on price, or features.
Apple needs to stop thinking that a small handful of blockbuster products is enough. They need to amass a larger number of smaller, but steadily selling products as well.
So perhaps they do need a $250 iPhone, even if it can't work perfectly with high end games and apps. Same thing for the iPad. Maybe Apple does need a content device that doesn't run my CAD apps that well, but runs content perfectly fine. Maybe a $225 Mini, and a $349 full size model. I bet that would come close to doubling sales.
But they need to double storage for the same price. No reason why the iPad Air isn't $499 with 32GB flash. $599 with 64GB, and $699 with 128.
And if it's margins we're talking about, then I need to remind people that with Apple lowering the prices of their software, or giving it away, margins are impacted heavily. If you sell FCP for $299 rather than the $999 it was previously, then Apple is losing most of their high margin software profit. Worse for OS X and now free apps. So we can't look to hardware pricing and think that lower margins are just due to them.
Apple has to startle people, and that hasn't happened for some time. I just hope this watch, if it comes out, is a major eye opener. Same thing for the new aTv we should be seeing soon.
I can't speak for everyone else. I have always been unsure of Cook.
... but in the statement that you quoted I was not being either judgemental nor critical.
[... and the $700 peak was a bubble created by speculation. The price should have peaked at $550, imo]
Right, so Cook and team shouldn't be nailed because the stock has fallen from an unsustainable level. Who's to say that other companies going up and up right now won't have their bubble burst too? Twitter is up almost 9% today and is at $64/share. Seems ridiculous to me. I'm skeptical of this idea that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. will just keep going up and up and up. I think the whole stock market is a bubble right now.
But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).
I don't think we need too much "new stuff" though. Apple's stock plummeted, not because there was no new stuff, but because the stuff they have didn't sell as well as we ALL were expecting it would. That's the key; growth to at least equal that of the industry, not significantly below it.
Right, so Cook and team shouldn't be nailed because the stock has fallen from an unsustainable level. Who's to say that other companies going up and up right now won't have their bubble burst too? Twitter is up almost 9% today and is at $64/share. Seems ridiculous to me. I'm skeptical of this idea that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. will just keep going up and up and up. I think the whole stock market is a bubble right now.
Cook should be nailed for not attaining at least a 10% growth level yoy. It has nothing to do with where the stock was previously.
I don't remember ever seeing any article that says that TWTR, GOOG, AMZN and FB are going to go up forever.
Besides... they are separate companies and all have to be looked at individually.
Change does take some time. Apple has some time, but not too much time. We can see its product sales are up, except for the expected drop in iPod sales. But they aren't up by much. For example, I fully expected to see iPhone sales of upwards of 55 million. But it really needed to be upward of 60 million to keep pace. It wasn't.
I expected to see iPad sales above 30 million, actually around 32 million. But they were up to 29 million. Not enough.
Mac sales were up, but still 400,000 below their best year, I think, two years ago. So not enough there either.
Apple has always had the problem of coming out with smashing new products, well ahead of others—and then just sitting on them. Incremental improvements aren't enough when it just takes two or at the most, three years for competitors to work around the advantages, either on price, or features.
Apple needs to stop thinking that a small handful of blockbuster products is enough. They need to amass a larger number of smaller, but steadily selling products as well.
So perhaps they do need a $250 iPhone, even if it can't work perfectly with high end games and apps. Same thing for the iPad. Maybe Apple does need a content device that doesn't run my CAD apps that well, but runs content perfectly fine. Maybe a $225 Mini, and a $349 full size model. I bet that would come close to doubling sales.
But they need to double storage for the same price. No reason why the iPad Air isn't $499 with 32GB flash. $599 with 64GB, and $699 with 128.
And if it's margins we're talking about, then I need to remind people that with Apple lowering the prices of their software, or giving it away, margins are impacted heavily. If you sell FCP for $299 rather than the $999 it was previously, then Apple is losing most of their high margin software profit. Worse for OS X and now free apps. So we can't look to hardware pricing and think that lower margins are just due to them.
Apple has to startle people, and that hasn't happened for some time. I just hope this watch, if it comes out, is a major eye opener. Same thing for the new aTv we should be seeing soon.
All of which is true. Part of me has always hoped that there are a few gems in the works cooked up by a still healthy Steve, awaiting technological advances to make them actual products. I fear without Steve there are no more industry level, paradigm shifts on the horizon from Apple, or anyone for that matter, for a long time to come with the possible exception of Elon.
I don't think we need too much "new stuff" though. Apple's stock plummeted, not because there was no new stuff, but because the stuff they have didn't sell as well as we ALL were expecting it would. That's the key; growth to at least equal that of the industry, not significantly below it.
Here's where I disagree. I think Apple needs new revenue streams. iPhone being over 50% of their revenues isn't healthy. And I do think part of the stock drop was because Wall Street was expecting new categories. That's why they keep badgering Cook about innovation. I don't want Apple to become Samsung. I don't want them to start building cheap phones and tablets just to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with market share. I want them to design and build products people are willing to pay a premium for. I want them to attract and keep profitable market share.
Cook should be nailed for not attaining at least a 10% growth level yoy. It has nothing to do with where the stock was previously.
I don't remember ever seeing any article that says that TWTR, GOOG, AMZN and FB are going to go up forever.
Besides... they are separate companies and all have to be looked at individually.
Cook should be nailed in what way? Fired? Demoted? His employment contract has already been adjusted to be tied to Apple's stock performance. I don't know what else can be done besides either firing him or demoting him back to COO.
Cook should be nailed in what way? Fired? Demoted? His employment contract has already been adjusted to be tied to Apple's stock performance. I don't know what else can be done besides either firing him or demoting him back to COO.
I'm not sure. It was your expression. You tell me.
Comments
As you know, CFO's don't run companies. They certainly shouldn't be. My CFO would never have presumed to make decisions of thet nature. Running the company is the job of the CEO.
They do spend money, just not on splashy acquisitions.
Worked for Google.
Billions sunk, patents invalidated or forcibly licensed, etc…
We need new thinking, not more regurgitated Steve Jobs thought. That era is over.
Well, if Cook stays at the top then I doubt if we are going to see too much change.
The problem Apple has now is they can never spend the money fast enough, unless they attempt to buy some stupidly large company and blow it on a company which it is not worth it. Wall Street tends favor stupid decision on purchases, The like the model of buy the market since most company can not grow into a market.
But maybe Cook will be proven right. At one point in 2012 Apple stock was around $700. What changed in terms of Apple's philosophy or the way it operates for everyone to be hating on it now? The concerns people have now...did they not exist in the spring/summer of 2012? Or is Cook expected to change on a dime and make some big acquisition or big change in philosophy/strategy in an attempt to keep the Wall Street love? I've listened to most of Tim's comments over the past two years and it always seemed to me like 2014 and beyond were going to be when we see brand new stuff from Apple. I've always looked at 2012 as a year for Apple to show it can stand on its own two feet without Steve Jobs and 2013 as a transitional year setting Apple up for bigger things in 2014 and beyond (like with Touch ID and 64-bit and the acquisitions they made).
I can't speak for everyone else. I have always been unsure of Cook.
... but in the statement that you quoted I was not being either judgemental nor critical.
[... and the $700 peak was a bubble created by speculation. The price should have peaked at $550, imo]
Change does take some time. Apple has some time, but not too much time. We can see its product sales are up, except for the expected drop in iPod sales. But they aren't up by much. For example, I fully expected to see iPhone sales of upwards of 55 million. But it really needed to be upward of 60 million to keep pace. It wasn't.
I expected to see iPad sales above 30 million, actually around 32 million. But they were up to 29 million. Not enough.
Mac sales were up, but still 400,000 below their best year, I think, two years ago. So not enough there either.
Apple has always had the problem of coming out with smashing new products, well ahead of others—and then just sitting on them. Incremental improvements aren't enough when it just takes two or at the most, three years for competitors to work around the advantages, either on price, or features.
Apple needs to stop thinking that a small handful of blockbuster products is enough. They need to amass a larger number of smaller, but steadily selling products as well.
So perhaps they do need a $250 iPhone, even if it can't work perfectly with high end games and apps. Same thing for the iPad. Maybe Apple does need a content device that doesn't run my CAD apps that well, but runs content perfectly fine. Maybe a $225 Mini, and a $349 full size model. I bet that would come close to doubling sales.
But they need to double storage for the same price. No reason why the iPad Air isn't $499 with 32GB flash. $599 with 64GB, and $699 with 128.
And if it's margins we're talking about, then I need to remind people that with Apple lowering the prices of their software, or giving it away, margins are impacted heavily. If you sell FCP for $299 rather than the $999 it was previously, then Apple is losing most of their high margin software profit. Worse for OS X and now free apps. So we can't look to hardware pricing and think that lower margins are just due to them.
Apple has to startle people, and that hasn't happened for some time. I just hope this watch, if it comes out, is a major eye opener. Same thing for the new aTv we should be seeing soon.
I don't think we need too much "new stuff" though. Apple's stock plummeted, not because there was no new stuff, but because the stuff they have didn't sell as well as we ALL were expecting it would. That's the key; growth to at least equal that of the industry, not significantly below it.
Right, so Cook and team shouldn't be nailed because the stock has fallen from an unsustainable level. Who's to say that other companies going up and up right now won't have their bubble burst too? Twitter is up almost 9% today and is at $64/share. Seems ridiculous to me. I'm skeptical of this idea that companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc. will just keep going up and up and up. I think the whole stock market is a bubble right now.
Cook should be nailed for not attaining at least a 10% growth level yoy. It has nothing to do with where the stock was previously.
I don't remember ever seeing any article that says that TWTR, GOOG, AMZN and FB are going to go up forever.
Besides... they are separate companies and all have to be looked at individually.
Ww that's a nice read, especially as I have not suffered any paper loss with AAPL to date, quite the reverse.
All of which is true. Part of me has always hoped that there are a few gems in the works cooked up by a still healthy Steve, awaiting technological advances to make them actual products. I fear without Steve there are no more industry level, paradigm shifts on the horizon from Apple, or anyone for that matter, for a long time to come with the possible exception of Elon.
Cook should be nailed in what way? Fired? Demoted? His employment contract has already been adjusted to be tied to Apple's stock performance. I don't know what else can be done besides either firing him or demoting him back to COO.
I'm not sure. It was your expression. You tell me.
Other than demanding mythical new product lines, what would you suggest? I've given my suggestions.