Apple's impressive App Store growth continues to be overlooked by Wall Street, Macquarie says

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 38
    pscooter63 wrote: »
    Speaking as a neophyte of neophytes, at least as far as investing is concerned, maybe someone here can rationally address something that has been lurking in the back of my head for the past week or so.

    Clearly Apple is one of the most successful corporations on the planet, for the past decade or so.  Is it possible that, from a macro-economic standpoint, there might be external concerns about too much wealth being amassed in one handbasket, and these market manipulations are  attempts to temper that, on someone's part (or groups of someones)?

    It sounds paranoid, I agree.  I'm just searching for logic and meaning in the chaos.

    That's an interesting question but unlikely the case.

    It's more a case of knowing who's in the know and greasing the right palms. Apple does neither of these things. It is a company founded in a garage, not by a conglomerate of the richest people on earth.

    I strongly recommend looking at the board of directors of the SP500 and see how many sit on so many of the same boards. Apple of course has its own web, but it's fundamentally different than those who control Wall Street.

    Also, Apple's lobbying budget is pathetically low (which I respect about them). But most other companies much smaller than apple spend many times more on lobbying and buying themselves monopolies.
    brisance
  • Reply 22 of 38
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,606member
    mnbob1 wrote: »

    If Jobs hadn't bet the house on the iPhone it's likely that Apple would have eventually filed bankruptcy and closed it's doors. It's possible that they could have been purchased by another company (doubtful because of Jobs ego) or gone private with investor cash out of the market scrutiny.

    Yes, and if the Axis had won WWII we'd all be speaking Japanese on the West Coast. Such speculation is idle fun, but probably far off the mark.
  • Reply 23 of 38
    thedbathedba Posts: 682member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    But what would the Apple of 2015 look like without the iPhone? People would've started streaming music through their BBs, and Win phones which would've decreased the sales of iPods, and music purchases. I completely agree with the OP's assessment.



    There's one little problem I have with your assumption. You're assuming the world would've been exactly the same, minus iPhone/iPad. 

    Without iPhone, would we have seen an explosion in smartphone adoption or would it have remained the domain of the very rich and tech wonder kids?

    Without iPhone, would we have seen an explosion in mobile formats built around HTML 5 or would Adobe's Flash be reigning supreme?

    I somehow doubt that Microsoft or Google or BlackBerry would be pushing hard for this. Look at how they were falling all over each other screaming that they supported the "full web" including Adobe Flash.  But who knows, maybe it would've turned into some ultra efficient and ultra secure format.   

  • Reply 24 of 38
    mnbob1mnbob1 Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheDBA View Post

     



    I'll disagree with that statement, since the apple of 2007 is nowhere close to the Apple of 1997.

    By 2007, Apple already had quite a bit of revenue coming in from their iPod/iTunes business and a growing Mac division.

    I do agree however that the mobile world would've been very different. Dominated by Windows phone and BlackBerry?   Yeeeeeesh!  




    What makes you think that Apple could sustain the iPod business? iPhones are carrier subsidized with a two year replacement cycle. iPods are sold at full price and don't have a known replacement cycle. Apple is a hardware company. Once the market had become saturated the sales of the iPod hardware would start to drop. The fight over DRM would cause iTunes to start to falter and other low cost hardware would take away the market. All speculation but possible. Jobs put all engineering resources and most of the cash on hand into the iPhone. Even when he introduced it it wasn't fully functional. If it failed as promised and he couldn't deliver or AT&T backed out the company would have been in big financial trouble.

  • Reply 25 of 38
    mnbob1mnbob1 Posts: 269member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post





    Yes, and if the Axis had won WWII we'd all be speaking Japanese on the West Coast. Such speculation is idle fun, but probably far off the mark.



    It's wonderful that we don't have to live in a world that such things actually occurred. Just think if we had lost how awful it would have been to grow up without a Japanese transistor radio to listen to the baseball games. Or are you too young for those memories?

  • Reply 26 of 38
    thedbathedba Posts: 682member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mnbob1 View Post

     



    What makes you think that Apple could sustain the iPod business? iPhones are carrier subsidized with a two year replacement cycle. iPods are sold at full price and don't have a known replacement cycle. Apple is a hardware company. Once the market had become saturated the sales of the iPod hardware would start to drop. The fight over DRM would cause iTunes to start to falter and other low cost hardware would take away the market. All speculation but possible. Jobs put all engineering resources and most of the cash on hand into the iPhone. Even when he introduced it it wasn't fully functional. If it failed as promised and he couldn't deliver or AT&T backed out the company would have been in big financial trouble.




    I never said that Apple would continue with iPod/iTunes and be successful, as it is now, without iPhone. Maybe you're right. By 2015 they'd be bankrupt. We just don't know. Of course you're assuming that Android would've morphed into what it is now even without iPhone showing them the way.  Maybe. I don't know.

  • Reply 27 of 38
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    Apple can never win with Wall Street.
    Earnings aren't record breaking enough.
    Growth isn't growthy enough.
    Sooner or later apple will fail.
    Let's compare an Apple product to something completely different just to say Apple sold less than that.
    Troubles in China only affect Apple.
    Define product categories in market share reports to only show Apple declining.
    Create imaginary "others" to decrease Apple's market share.
    Use a small unscientific sample size and declare it a scientifically accurate survey.
    Apple needs competition.
  • Reply 28 of 38
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    thedba wrote: »
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    But what would the Apple of 2015 look like without the iPhone? People would've started streaming music through their BBs, and Win phones which would've decreased the sales of iPods, and music purchases. I completely agree with the OP's assessment.


    There's one little problem I have with your assumption. You're assuming the world would've been exactly the same, minus iPhone/iPad. 
    Without iPhone, would we have seen an explosion in smartphone adoption or would it have remained the domain of the very rich and tech wonder kids?
    Without iPhone, would we have seen an explosion in mobile formats built around HTML 5 or would Adobe's Flash be reigning supreme?
    I somehow doubt that Microsoft or Google or BlackBerry would be pushing hard for this. Look at how they were falling all over each other screaming that they supported the "full web" including Adobe Flash.  But who knows, maybe it would've turned into some ultra efficient and ultra secure format.   

    The BB Curve was a very popular device, and not only amongst the rich, and techies. History wouldn't have followed the same trajectory, but smartphone usage would've exploded nonetheless, and complete touchscreen smartphones were already on the horizon though it would've taken a few years to perfect. As far as Flash goes, I have no idea what would've happened.
  • Reply 29 of 38
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,351member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mnbob1 View Post

     



    If Jobs hadn't bet the house on the iPhone it's likely that Apple would have eventually filed bankruptcy and closed it's doors. It's possible that they could have been purchased by another company (doubtful because of Jobs ego) or gone private with investor cash out of the market scrutiny.


     

    "Likely"? Sorry, bullshit. Apple was extremely profitable before the iPhone- Macs and iPods did very well for them. They also had extremely high brand equity. It's not "likely" at all that they would have filed for bankruptcy. 

  • Reply 30 of 38
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    One thing people forget and they seems to forget many things , wall street Traders are on vacation and the summer volume is low as usual. This makes it easier for a minority of traders to artificially manipulate ta stock. Once the key traders, professionals and , fund mangers get back to their offices in mid September and start running the numbers on Apple , things will get back to normal. Just watch!
  • Reply 31 of 38
    blazarblazar Posts: 270member
    Analysts have been wrong in almost every aspect of apple predictions. The stock price moves are NOT a good indicator of apple future potential and price moves seem to be the only "news" reported.

    The china and global concerns are always "important" but also ultimately unpredictable.

    I am still buying significant aapl shares and will buy more the lower it goes. The dividend rate is compelling and in my portfolio already represents substantial long term income that I tend to re-invest in higher risk stocks.
  • Reply 32 of 38
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Had Mr. Jobs not "bet the house" on the iPhone they might still be just another tech player. Their massive success over the past 7 years can be attributed to that one product making it a great call by a man who despite any other faults he might have had certainly had vision. Success like that doesn't happen often.

    You can follow this line of garbage reasoning back in history to other moronic "IF'S"--------  If IBM had not licensed away MS-DOS,  Microsoft wouldn't exist. IF Hitler hadn't been born, IF the British hadn't cracked the Enigma Code, If Newton had't seen the Apple fall. It's  like trying to make sense of "Return to the future" and all the other time line nonsense. Your comment is fecking  ridiculous . I wish the signature panel was bigger you certainly qualify for inclusion!

  • Reply 33 of 38
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,379member
    paul94544 wrote: »
    You can follow this line of garbage reasoning back in history to other moronic "IF'S"
      Your comment is fecking  ridiculous . I wish the signature panel was bigger you certainly qualify for inclusion!
    What garbage reasoning? You're a bit short on specifics. What exactly in my post do you disagree with?

    That Apple "bet the house" on the iPhone?
    The iPhone is responsible for the majority of Apple's success over the past 7 years (and thus their wealth)?
    That Jobs move was brilliant?
  • Reply 34 of 38
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,379member
    sog35 wrote: »
    WRONG.

    The iPhone was not a one off product... It was obvious after seeing the iPod touch that an iPhone was only a matter of time. .
    Wrong what? Who claimed it was a one-off product?

    BTW, I thought the iPod Touch came AFTER the iPhone. It couldn't have been the lead-in to the iPhone. Check your facts first before telling others they're wrong.
  • Reply 35 of 38
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,379member
    sog35 wrote: »
    It was not a big risk by Apple to bring out the iPhone.
    Apple would disagree with you:
    "There were huge risks [with the first iPhone]," Schiller said. "We had a saying inside the company that it was a 'bet the company' product."
    brisance
  • Reply 36 of 38
    tsun zutsun zu Posts: 72member

    It may be helpful to think that some (read most) Wall Street Analysts have "other" clients who would like to buy APPL at a discounted price after the Quarterly Earnings. After the dust settles in a couple of weeks time, APPL will start going up again and these "Other" clients make a lot by selling their APPL. Only those who rely on Wall Street Analysis loses, not those who directed Wall Street Analysts "analysis".

     

    Go and check APPL history, it always fell after an Earnings Release and then climb back before the next one.

     

    May be you should sell just before the earning release and then buy back after the release when the price fell down. Historically this happens every.single.time. This have been described nicely in John Grisham's book "The Runaway Jury". In this novel, it was a court verdict (engineered by 2 young people) that drove the price of tobacco companies. Here the verdict is by the Wall Street and they know that they have the power to drive down price.

     

    When you let others think on your behalf and make important decisions, they will start taking advantage, sooner or later.

  • Reply 37 of 38
    rayzrayz Posts: 814member
    Wall Street has a very simple model that has served it well for many many years:

    Companies that are a monopoly will always be successful.
    Companies demonstrating a plan to become a monopoly will eventually be successful.

    The problem they have with Apple is that the company has no monopoly in any of its product lines, and the company doesn't demonstrate a desire to gain a monopoly by aggressively driving other companies out of business.

    Bear in mind that Wall Street defines success in terms of market share of products shipped. It doesn't matter whether these products are paid for or not. In fact, if they are given away for free then that's even better because that's a fast way to build a monopoly.
    brisance
Sign In or Register to comment.