With 4GB RAM and an almost 13" screen, the iPad Pro is the first iPad to seriously infringe on laptop territory. That's fine, but it's also a test. Namely, do people want a bigger iPad or a smaller laptop? It's the (new) Macbook vs. the iPad Pro, best of 10 rounds, ding ding ding!
So it's not self-evident that the iPad Pro will reverse certain iPad trends, it's maybe one of the more daring predictions Kuo has made lately. Especially given that the iPad Pro hasn't even gone on sale yet, and (as the article notes) the new Macbook is very popular.
I think this "fight" will be between two different concepts of Pro tablets - one with mobile OS, one with desktop OS. It will be between iPad Pro and Surface Pro 3 and 4.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/189680/worst-is-over-as-higher-price-of-ipad-pro-to-offset-ipad-shipment-declines-kgi-says/40#post_2794709" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Rogifan</strong> <a href="/t/189680/worst-is-over-as-higher-price-of-ipad-pro-to-offset-ipad-shipment-declines-kgi-says/40#post_2794709"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br />Both Google and Amazon up 10%+ after hours, Microsoft up over 5%. No doubt next week Apple will beat but Wall Street will find something wrong and send the stock down 5%.</div></div><p> </p><p>Thats why Apple needs to go private.</p><p> </p><p>Google reported 13% revenue growth. The stock goes up 10%.</p><p>Last quarter Apple reported 30% revenue growth and stock goes down 10%.</p><p> </p><p>AAPL shareholders need to wake and demand the company go private to stop this bullshit.</p><p>Wall Street is literally stealing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars of equity value from shareholder and employees.</p>
I agree with Neil Cybart. Wall Street has no clue how to value large cap tech stocks. I'm sorry but a 500B company shouldn't be jumping 10 percent one way or the other after a quarterly earnings call. Prior to earnings release Microsoft PE was over 30. Stock is up 8% after hours and everyone on CNBC is saying the stock is cheap. Apple's PE is 13. Seriously?!? What happens to Amazon if/when Wall Street stops assuming a loss and actually expects them to make money? Why was Wall Street consensus for a 13 cents loss considering how well AWS has been doing? Not difficult to beat expectations when the bar is set so low. No unrealistic "whisper numbers" to drive the stock down the next day.
Apple is down 13%
S&P 500 down 4%
Dow down 4%
Nasdaq down 7%
Apple is down significantly more than the market. This is despite Apple growing revenue 35% and EPS 40%. While the market has close to zero revenue growth and profit growth.
The China concerns are bullshiit. Nike also has large exposure to China yet their stock is up 30% the last 6 months. Despite Nike having lower revenue and profit growth than Apple.
I just wrote a mini-article and sent it to Fortune's Philip Elmer Dewitt, who I converse with occasionally about the state of Apple. It's a crapshoot as to whether he'll publish it or excerpt from it for an article of his own (he has my standing permission to use, with or without attribution, anything I send him). Here is what I wrote:
LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS DEBUNKED
Among the arguments why Apple shares cannot outperform the market or its peers has been the oft repeated law of large numbers; the claim that Apple is too big to meaningfully grow and that its market cap, at over $600 billion, is so big that there aren't enough investment dollars to move the needle.
But last night the market unwittingly provided an irrefutable counter argument by taking the combined market caps of GOOGL and AMZN to $800 billion. The market seems to have no trouble adding $80 billion to these two companies, whose combined profits are a fraction of Apple's, but won't allow the same for a single company. It was Microsoft's year 2000 valuation, north of $600 billion at the peak of the dotcom bubble and stagnant for the decade thereafter, that has since been used as the poster child for what happens to the company with the world's highest market cap. The street is convinced that will be Apple's fate.
What the market doesn't seem to understand is that vertically integrated Apple, in terms of the profits it generates and markets it addresses, is equivalent to the entire PC industry of the 1990s, including MSFT, Sony, Toshiba, IBM's PC division, Compaq, HP, and all the other PC makers. Adjusted for inflation, MSFT's year 2000 valuation alone would today be $850 billion, against Apple's current $650 billion. How much higher when you add in all the PC makers from 2000?
Apple's market cap, given the scope of its business, and adjusted for inflation, is very conservative. As usual, the market is wrong.
You've summed up my own view of the Market very well. You'd think people would have learned a lesson from all the insanity surrounding Crash of 1929.
Here are my thoughts overall on investing versus speculation, and the perception of the market. Hope this can add some nuance to your own thoughts:
INVESTMENT VERSUS SPECULATION
The first level of wisdom a prospective investor hears and integrates is the old saw about diversification. And that's about as far as it goes for many. The problem with diversification is that, even if you are diversified, you'll still likely have in your portfolio several holdings that don't fit the definition of a good investment.
Those who go a bit farther in their studies begin to have a more nuanced comprehension and come to realize that not all businesses and opportunities represent investments. So what do these other businesses and opportunities represent if not investments? The answer is that anything that isn't an investment is speculation. To be successful with individual stocks/businesses, you should carry in your mind a definition of these two concepts. Here are my working definitions of the two terms:
"An investment is a commitment to holding a security as long as the underlying fundamentals and business prospects remain intact."
Take Apple, for example. Apple shares are an investment as long as Apple continues to perform as well as it is currently performing. As long as it continues to generate the revenues and earnings it is currently generating. Even if neither rise.
"Speculation is a bet on some future outcome, either positive or negative, that would materially change the fortunes of a business."
Note that the main difference here is that an investment relies upon the continuation of the status quo while speculation is a bet against the status quo.
GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT), a maker of solar manufacturing equipment, is an example of a speculative bet, and one that went terribly wrong for those who made that bet. In 2012 and 2013, GTAT saw its solar business collapse under the weight of competition from Chinese manufacturers. Late in 2013, GTAT partnered with Apple to manufacture sapphire displays, presumably for use on the iPhone 6. GTAT needed that partnership to go well; it represented GTAT’s lifeline to a corporate reboot, a chance to reinvent itself in a new line of business in which it had little experience. That reinvention, if successful, would materially enhance the value of the company. If a failure, it would mark the collapse of GTAT as a viable business. GTAT did fail, and filed for bankruptcy protection. In the process, the share price went from a high of about $20 to about 40 cents. Many of those holding the shares indignantly complained in online forums that their investment was wiped out by unscrupulous actions of GTAT's CEO and management team. They weren’t wrong about the actions of GTAT’s management, but they were wrong in characterizing their GTAT holdings as an investment. These people were speculating and paid a high price.
It's those who don't understand the difference between an investment and a speculative bet who always end up convinced the market is rigged. These folks likely put money into one or more companies with business models that represented a speculative bet on some unlikely outcome, lost their money and associated that experience with the entire experience of participating in the market. How many times have you heard someone say the stock market is like a casino? Well, I liken the stock market, at the hands of a participant who has done his/her research and applied appropriate metrics, to a casino where you get to see your blackjack hand and the dealer’s up card before you place your bet and where you have the option of betting big, betting small, or not betting at all on each hand. The odds are strongly in your favor, but you can still do something foolish. If you get your head on straight, stick to securities that represent a valid investment according to the above definition, and avoid speculation, at least until you have learned the hedging and other strategies associated with successful speculation, you’ll increase both your chances of a successful investment career and your returns throughout that career.
CONCENTRATION VERSUS DIVERSIFICATION
With the above in mind, you also need to be able to follow, closely, your investments. To follow a business, you need to understand the business and its success factors, its marketplace, its competition, how it compares to that competition, what technological changes are on the horizon that might impact the business, the legal, regulatory, and political landscape associated with the business, etc. Even so-called professional analysts, because they attempt to cover multiple, often many, businesses, nearly always get it wrong on a large and well followed and reported-on business like Apple. How many people can follow even three companies, in three different industries, with different metrics as measures of success? How many even know the metrics of success for even one company in which they take a position? Stock picking, itself, is for the vast majority of those who participate, casino betting. Diversification, in this context, is appropriate since you would want to limit exposure to any individual bet.
With the definition of investment in hand, it's a matter of screening for companies that are structurally sound; strong earnings at a relatively low multiple, solid balance sheet with net tangible assets not far below total stockholder equity (i.e., little of the company's assets represented by the Goodwill and Intangible Assets line items), and plenty of cash/cash equivalents to carry the company through downturns or changes in the direction of the business.
Also look for a history of organic growth versus acquisition-based growth, a strong brand and competitive position, no significant impediments to growth, no significant risks such as lawsuits or potential for lawsuits (think medical device manufacturers and the hip implant lawsuits that have cost them billions), and technological leadership (which can be associated with the company's product technology or associated with process technology or even marketing technology; you want some significant technology lead that gives the company a clear edge).
There are other things to look for, some that depend upon the particular business. I look for a business that excels in whatever metrics are most critical for success and growth in the industry/segment in which the business participates. And it should be comprehensible to a non-expert in the field; buy what you know.
The temperament and discipline to stay the course and not get thrashed moving from one stock to another can be bolstered by having strong confidence in the businesses in which you place your investable funds, so knowing the workings of each business and its competitive environment is key. And that leads to the question... how much can you know about 10 businesses versus two or three at-a-time? The answer is obvious and points to the fact that you should consider concentrating your holdings only when you know a business cold, and diversify your holdings when you don’t. And leave speculation to those who know how to win at that game.
Apple should have axed the 1st gen iPad Air and reduced the price of the Air 2. I can't imagine they're selling a lot of Air 2s when people know a 3 could probably drop in the spring (and perhaps with Pencil and 3D Touch support).
Why do you think it would be here in the spring? What evidence do you have for that?
True I don't work for them, but I'm pretty damn experienced in the IT sector. I have almost literally no clue how an iPad would operate for even the simplest tasks for anyone ranging from the lowly helpdesk to net/server admins. Yes, I know what an iPad is, how to use them and what they can do, it's one of various devices we deploy to and have enterprise software for. It's just for work completely unrelated to IT.
What exactly do IBM use them for? I can see their business potential, just not their usage within the IT world.
Why would it matter whether IT finds it useful for themselves? IT's needs are dwarfed by the needs of the organization overall.
Comments
I think this "fight" will be between two different concepts of Pro tablets - one with mobile OS, one with desktop OS. It will be between iPad Pro and Surface Pro 3 and 4.
I agree with Neil Cybart. Wall Street has no clue how to value large cap tech stocks. I'm sorry but a 500B company shouldn't be jumping 10 percent one way or the other after a quarterly earnings call. Prior to earnings release Microsoft PE was over 30. Stock is up 8% after hours and everyone on CNBC is saying the stock is cheap. Apple's PE is 13. Seriously?!? What happens to Amazon if/when Wall Street stops assuming a loss and actually expects them to make money? Why was Wall Street consensus for a 13 cents loss considering how well AWS has been doing? Not difficult to beat expectations when the bar is set so low. No unrealistic "whisper numbers" to drive the stock down the next day.
iPad sales will be what the market decides. Instead, let's focus on the upcoming good news: MacBooks with Skylake chips and the iPhone 7.
Some of us have self-banned ourselves because sog35 (and others) is always right.
I just wrote a mini-article and sent it to Fortune's Philip Elmer Dewitt, who I converse with occasionally about the state of Apple. It's a crapshoot as to whether he'll publish it or excerpt from it for an article of his own (he has my standing permission to use, with or without attribution, anything I send him). Here is what I wrote:
LAW OF LARGE NUMBERS DEBUNKED
Among the arguments why Apple shares cannot outperform the market or its peers has been the oft repeated law of large numbers; the claim that Apple is too big to meaningfully grow and that its market cap, at over $600 billion, is so big that there aren't enough investment dollars to move the needle.
But last night the market unwittingly provided an irrefutable counter argument by taking the combined market caps of GOOGL and AMZN to $800 billion. The market seems to have no trouble adding $80 billion to these two companies, whose combined profits are a fraction of Apple's, but won't allow the same for a single company. It was Microsoft's year 2000 valuation, north of $600 billion at the peak of the dotcom bubble and stagnant for the decade thereafter, that has since been used as the poster child for what happens to the company with the world's highest market cap. The street is convinced that will be Apple's fate.
What the market doesn't seem to understand is that vertically integrated Apple, in terms of the profits it generates and markets it addresses, is equivalent to the entire PC industry of the 1990s, including MSFT, Sony, Toshiba, IBM's PC division, Compaq, HP, and all the other PC makers. Adjusted for inflation, MSFT's year 2000 valuation alone would today be $850 billion, against Apple's current $650 billion. How much higher when you add in all the PC makers from 2000?
Apple's market cap, given the scope of its business, and adjusted for inflation, is very conservative. As usual, the market is wrong.
Here are my thoughts overall on investing versus speculation, and the perception of the market. Hope this can add some nuance to your own thoughts:
INVESTMENT VERSUS SPECULATION
The first level of wisdom a prospective investor hears and integrates is the old saw about diversification. And that's about as far as it goes for many. The problem with diversification is that, even if you are diversified, you'll still likely have in your portfolio several holdings that don't fit the definition of a good investment.
Those who go a bit farther in their studies begin to have a more nuanced comprehension and come to realize that not all businesses and opportunities represent investments. So what do these other businesses and opportunities represent if not investments? The answer is that anything that isn't an investment is speculation. To be successful with individual stocks/businesses, you should carry in your mind a definition of these two concepts. Here are my working definitions of the two terms:
"An investment is a commitment to holding a security as long as the underlying fundamentals and business prospects remain intact."
Take Apple, for example. Apple shares are an investment as long as Apple continues to perform as well as it is currently performing. As long as it continues to generate the revenues and earnings it is currently generating. Even if neither rise.
"Speculation is a bet on some future outcome, either positive or negative, that would materially change the fortunes of a business."
Note that the main difference here is that an investment relies upon the continuation of the status quo while speculation is a bet against the status quo.
GT Advanced Technologies (GTAT), a maker of solar manufacturing equipment, is an example of a speculative bet, and one that went terribly wrong for those who made that bet. In 2012 and 2013, GTAT saw its solar business collapse under the weight of competition from Chinese manufacturers. Late in 2013, GTAT partnered with Apple to manufacture sapphire displays, presumably for use on the iPhone 6. GTAT needed that partnership to go well; it represented GTAT’s lifeline to a corporate reboot, a chance to reinvent itself in a new line of business in which it had little experience. That reinvention, if successful, would materially enhance the value of the company. If a failure, it would mark the collapse of GTAT as a viable business. GTAT did fail, and filed for bankruptcy protection. In the process, the share price went from a high of about $20 to about 40 cents. Many of those holding the shares indignantly complained in online forums that their investment was wiped out by unscrupulous actions of GTAT's CEO and management team. They weren’t wrong about the actions of GTAT’s management, but they were wrong in characterizing their GTAT holdings as an investment. These people were speculating and paid a high price.
It's those who don't understand the difference between an investment and a speculative bet who always end up convinced the market is rigged. These folks likely put money into one or more companies with business models that represented a speculative bet on some unlikely outcome, lost their money and associated that experience with the entire experience of participating in the market. How many times have you heard someone say the stock market is like a casino? Well, I liken the stock market, at the hands of a participant who has done his/her research and applied appropriate metrics, to a casino where you get to see your blackjack hand and the dealer’s up card before you place your bet and where you have the option of betting big, betting small, or not betting at all on each hand. The odds are strongly in your favor, but you can still do something foolish. If you get your head on straight, stick to securities that represent a valid investment according to the above definition, and avoid speculation, at least until you have learned the hedging and other strategies associated with successful speculation, you’ll increase both your chances of a successful investment career and your returns throughout that career.
CONCENTRATION VERSUS DIVERSIFICATION
With the above in mind, you also need to be able to follow, closely, your investments. To follow a business, you need to understand the business and its success factors, its marketplace, its competition, how it compares to that competition, what technological changes are on the horizon that might impact the business, the legal, regulatory, and political landscape associated with the business, etc. Even so-called professional analysts, because they attempt to cover multiple, often many, businesses, nearly always get it wrong on a large and well followed and reported-on business like Apple. How many people can follow even three companies, in three different industries, with different metrics as measures of success? How many even know the metrics of success for even one company in which they take a position? Stock picking, itself, is for the vast majority of those who participate, casino betting. Diversification, in this context, is appropriate since you would want to limit exposure to any individual bet.
With the definition of investment in hand, it's a matter of screening for companies that are structurally sound; strong earnings at a relatively low multiple, solid balance sheet with net tangible assets not far below total stockholder equity (i.e., little of the company's assets represented by the Goodwill and Intangible Assets line items), and plenty of cash/cash equivalents to carry the company through downturns or changes in the direction of the business.
Also look for a history of organic growth versus acquisition-based growth, a strong brand and competitive position, no significant impediments to growth, no significant risks such as lawsuits or potential for lawsuits (think medical device manufacturers and the hip implant lawsuits that have cost them billions), and technological leadership (which can be associated with the company's product technology or associated with process technology or even marketing technology; you want some significant technology lead that gives the company a clear edge).
There are other things to look for, some that depend upon the particular business. I look for a business that excels in whatever metrics are most critical for success and growth in the industry/segment in which the business participates. And it should be comprehensible to a non-expert in the field; buy what you know.
The temperament and discipline to stay the course and not get thrashed moving from one stock to another can be bolstered by having strong confidence in the businesses in which you place your investable funds, so knowing the workings of each business and its competitive environment is key. And that leads to the question... how much can you know about 10 businesses versus two or three at-a-time? The answer is obvious and points to the fact that you should consider concentrating your holdings only when you know a business cold, and diversify your holdings when you don’t. And leave speculation to those who know how to win at that game.
An iPad is not a MacBook. Buy multiple iPads ya cheapskate.
Why do you think it would be here in the spring? What evidence do you have for that?
Why would it matter whether IT finds it useful for themselves? IT's needs are dwarfed by the needs of the organization overall.