Ha, Pacific Crests’s Andy Hardgreaves upgraded the stock yesterday with a $142 price target saying “long-term value offsets remaining near-term risk.” This clown with his D&G is one of the reasons AAPL has been pathetic lately and now he upgrades the stock. :rolleyes:
Enterprise is 'another growth vector'... Did Tim Cook say they're rolling out 1900 Macs a month to IBM and each Mac saves IBM $270 in support costs? I'd say iPhone is next to roll out on a bigger scale in Enterprise, IBM and beyond.
For three years now people have been saying iPhone can't grow and yet every quarter Apple is selling record iPhones for that quarter. This quarter which is seasonally Apple's worst, they sold 48M iPhones. That's only 3 million less than they sold in the holiday quarter 2 years ago. This quarter Apple recorded the highest number of Android switchers yet people still say iPhone growth is over.
The guy is a total dumbass. He was just trying to save face for making a jackass of himself earlier in the day saying that Apple was done.
Ha, he was on CNBC just now basically backtracking what he said yesterday and his pessimism on the call. Now he's confident iPhone still has room to grow beyond the December quarter. :rolleyes:
I'm totally with you. Obviously there is growth. iPhone sales are growing through the roof! It's crazy, but they just don't see. I just don't see how these analysts could ignore the growth that is occurring in Enterprise, that Tim Cook laid this out for them on the call, and they just selectively ignore it. Blows my mind!
Don't care what WallStreet thinks. They're a bunch of monkeys anyway. Isn't going to make any difference in how Apple is run (hopefully Tim doesn't really pay attention to those clowns).
Apple is doing well financially, but from a real business point of view (as in practical product manufacturing and user adoption) there are some concerns, including the misses with 16GB iPhones, new AppleTVs without 4k support, iMacs with 5400rpm drives, neutering the Mac mini, no updates to MacPro in years (again), no dedicated GPUs in MacBook Pros (except a single model at the highest end), etc.
And the significant slide in iPad sales is a very real concern too. I think that can be attributed to a lack of updates/new features (same iPad Air 2 anyone?), but also more importantly is that there has been no real progress on making iOS content CREATION friendly. You can't continue to hide the file system and provide effectively no I/O on the device (among other things) and have the iPad taken seriously as a real tool for real work.
While I don't care what WallStreet thinks, these very real real-world issues probably are reflected in their stock valuation.
That sounds ridiculous... Despite no dedicated GPU in most Macs, sales are up. No 4K in the new Apple TV means they'll release one next year or in 2 years with 4K and everybody who bought one will buy another one to scramble to get 4K. That means a lot more sales, more money for Apple, and a stable path for growth. If you're bitter about these nit picks you have, that's one thing, but from a financial perspective for Apple it has the exact opposite effect you're saying. You couldn't be more wrong than you are on this point.
There is nothing in my posts that is not factual. I never said that Apple don't make gobs of money from other items. I also never said "iPhone" was a one trick pony, I said "Apple" is nearly a one trick pony.
but thats nonsense troll-speak. apple OWNS all the profit in TWO industries -- PC sales and mobile. gobbled it up.
so youre factually incorrect, and your statement is pointless.
The guy on the call who discounted the December quarter and was fretting about March is the same guy who was on CNBC yesterday saying Apple's best days were behind it. CNBC referred to him as "the top hardware IT analyst". I loved it when Cook shot him down saying he didn't agree with anything this guy said about the December quarter.
I'd love it if Tim or Luca were to directly attack one of the more egregious analysts for their lazy lines of questioning and cut them off from further idiotic questions.
There is nothing in my posts that is not factual. I never said that Apple don't make gobs of money from other items. I also never said "iPhone" was a one trick pony, I said "Apple" is nearly a one trick pony.
but thats nonsense troll-speak. apple OWNS all the profit in TWO industries -- PC sales and mobile. gobbled it up.
so youre factually incorrect, and your statement is pointless.
@sog35 i understand your frustration. But there is no way Apple could go private. Once you have accumulated enough stock, let say 55% but all distributed in different hands, wall street will notice and drive to price to "proper" ratio,...... um....... how about P/E 20? That is really low by the way when Google and Microsoft are in P/E 3x.......
P/E 20 Apple would have a market valuation of 1 trillion. All of a sudden your price to private shoot up by about 400B.
And Apple is now used as a pivot, more or less as a safe heaven for money and indices, they can sell out all their other stock and push Apple's stock price to proper level just to balance DOW.
Although yes... I would love to see Apple go private.
The guy on the call who discounted the December quarter and was fretting about March is the same guy who was on CNBC yesterday saying Apple's best days were behind it. CNBC referred to him as "the top hardware IT analyst". I loved it when Cook shot him down saying he didn't agree with anything this guy said about the December quarter.
I'd love it if Tim or Luca were to directly attack one of the more egregious analysts for their lazy lines of questioning and cut them off from further idiotic questions.
What's worse is that investors actually trust, and believe them. When a 'expert' is constantly wrong at what point does one question the validity of their supposed expertise? How can people constantly put their good money behind anything this analyst says?
Thats going to be a $25 billion company for Apple next year. Thats 250% larger than all the movie ticket sales in hollywood.
App sales can't be included because they don't create the apps that make all that revenue except for Apple Music. You are correct in that Apple makes tons of money from other sources and I don't agree with the poster that called them a one trick pony.
Do Apple not derive most of thier income and (65%) an even higher percentage of profits from the iPhone?
Yes... Apple makes 65% of their money from iPhones hardware sales. Scary? Maybe.
But Google makes 90% of their money from advertising/search. That's even scarier.
And they also lose money on their other products. Google (Alphabet) moonshots... robots, balloons, drones... will lose somewhere between $500 million and $4 billion this year. Yikes!
Meanwhile... ALL of Apple's other products and services make money... in addition to the iPhone.
What was that old quote about iTunes alone could be a Fortune 500 company? Or the Macintosh alone?
I can understand the issue of Apple earning so much money from one product line. But the truth is... their other businesses are also VERY successful in their own right.
Do Apple not derive most of thier income and (65%) an even higher percentage of profits from the iPhone?
Yes... Apple makes 65% of their money from iPhones hardware sales. Scary? Maybe.
But Google makes 90% of their money from advertising/search. That's even scarier.
And they also lose money on their other products. Google (Alphabet) moonshots... robots, balloons, drones... will lose somewhere between $500 million and $4 billion this year. Yikes!
Meanwhile... ALL of Apple's other products and services make money... in addition to the iPhone.
What was that old quote about iTunes alone could be a Fortune 500 company? Or the Macintosh alone?
I can understand the issue of Apple earning so much money from one product line. But the truth is... their other businesses are also VERY successful in their own right.
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
See... I thought the problem was having so much of your business tied to one thing and not being so diverse. That's what the comments have been suggesting.
But you're suggesting that even though Google makes nearly all of their money in advertising... that it's still a good thing because advertising will always be around. I never thought of it like that.
Sure... if the smartphone disappeared... Apple could be screwed (except that their other businesses are huge in their own right)
However... Google would also be screwed since they make a ton of money from Android (which would disappear too since it's a smartphone OS)
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
You are assuming that Google can maintain its status as leader in search and advertising in the free world; that may not always be the case, nor is it the case that Amazon will always dominate online sales. All will have to work to maintain their positions in their markets, as will Apple.
What is known, is that Apple is a very adept consumer electronics company with a broad ecosystem, that spends huge amounts of its capital on both manufacturing technology and R&D for its products. Its culture is not a guarantee that it will be disruptive in the future, but there is the likelihood that it will be able to continue creating best of class products in those areas that it chooses to participate.
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
See... I thought the problem was having so much of your business tied to one thing and not being so diverse. That's what the comments have been suggesting.
But you're suggesting that even though Google makes nearly all of their money in advertising... that it's still a good thing because advertising will always be around. I never thought of it like that.
Sure... if the smartphone disappeared... Apple could be screwed (except that their other businesses are huge in their own right)
However... Google would also be screwed since they make a ton of money from Android (which would disappear too since it's a smartphone OS)
Interesting topic!
Smartphones aren't going anywhere any time soon, and Apple has handily won the smartphone war. The iPhone revenue stream is exceptionally huge, and has consistently grown, and that growth will eventually slow down, plateau, or go down slightly. I don't see how that's a problem if Apple is selling in one quarter what its competitors wished they sold in a year.
You're forgetting that many of Apple's other revenue streams are dependent on iPhones sales, but that's a pretty solid foundation to depend upon.
Don't also forget that Google makes more money from iOS users than from Android users, so it behooves them that the iOS devices continue to sell well, especially now when so many are fleeing the platform. Those switchers are bad for the Android OEMs, but so much for Google.
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
You are assuming that Google can maintain its status as leader in search and advertising in the free world; that may not always be the case, nor is it the case that Amazon will always dominate online sales. All will have to work to maintain their positions in their markets, as will Apple.
What is known, is that Apple is a very adept consumer electronics company with a broad ecosystem, that spends huge amounts of its capital on both manufacturing technology and R&D for its products. Its culture is not a guarantee that it will be disruptive in the future, but there is the likelihood that it will be able to continue creating best of class products in those areas that it chooses to participate.
I did not once mention Google by name in my post. I was merely pointing out why investing in an advertising company might be more attractive than investing in a company that produces a physical product. Right now that company is Google but as you point out it could become another one in the future, and that company will become attractive to investors.
My other point is Apple/shareholders don't need to buy all of the shares to go private. Only the shares of shareholders who want to sell. Apple could simply convert public shares to private shares. There is no law against this. Lets say Apple is worth $1 trillion. If shareholders vote to go private and none want to sell they could simply convert their public shares to private shares. No money needs to exchange hands.
Yes. But you do realize more then 60+% of Apple Stock are in institutional , pension or hedge fund? A few percentage belongs to Employees, Laurene Powell. There isn't enough investor interest in doing so.
Comments
For three years now people have been saying iPhone can't grow and yet every quarter Apple is selling record iPhones for that quarter. This quarter which is seasonally Apple's worst, they sold 48M iPhones. That's only 3 million less than they sold in the holiday quarter 2 years ago. This quarter Apple recorded the highest number of Android switchers yet people still say iPhone growth is over.
Ha, he was on CNBC just now basically backtracking what he said yesterday and his pessimism on the call. Now he's confident iPhone still has room to grow beyond the December quarter. :rolleyes:
I'm totally with you. Obviously there is growth. iPhone sales are growing through the roof! It's crazy, but they just don't see. I just don't see how these analysts could ignore the growth that is occurring in Enterprise, that Tim Cook laid this out for them on the call, and they just selectively ignore it. Blows my mind!
but thats nonsense troll-speak. apple OWNS all the profit in TWO industries -- PC sales and mobile. gobbled it up.
so youre factually incorrect, and your statement is pointless.
I'd love it if Tim or Luca were to directly attack one of the more egregious analysts for their lazy lines of questioning and cut them off from further idiotic questions.
That's still technically one industry.
@sog35 i understand your frustration. But there is no way Apple could go private. Once you have accumulated enough stock, let say 55% but all distributed in different hands, wall street will notice and drive to price to "proper" ratio,...... um....... how about P/E 20? That is really low by the way when Google and Microsoft are in P/E 3x.......
P/E 20 Apple would have a market valuation of 1 trillion. All of a sudden your price to private shoot up by about 400B.
And Apple is now used as a pivot, more or less as a safe heaven for money and indices, they can sell out all their other stock and push Apple's stock price to proper level just to balance DOW.
Although yes... I would love to see Apple go private.
What's worse is that investors actually trust, and believe them. When a 'expert' is constantly wrong at what point does one question the validity of their supposed expertise? How can people constantly put their good money behind anything this analyst says?
App sales can't be included because they don't create the apps that make all that revenue except for Apple Music. You are correct in that Apple makes tons of money from other sources and I don't agree with the poster that called them a one trick pony.
Yes... Apple makes 65% of their money from iPhones hardware sales. Scary? Maybe.
But Google makes 90% of their money from advertising/search. That's even scarier.
And they also lose money on their other products. Google (Alphabet) moonshots... robots, balloons, drones... will lose somewhere between $500 million and $4 billion this year. Yikes!
Meanwhile... ALL of Apple's other products and services make money... in addition to the iPhone.
What was that old quote about iTunes alone could be a Fortune 500 company? Or the Macintosh alone?
I can understand the issue of Apple earning so much money from one product line. But the truth is... their other businesses are also VERY successful in their own right.
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
See... I thought the problem was having so much of your business tied to one thing and not being so diverse. That's what the comments have been suggesting.
But you're suggesting that even though Google makes nearly all of their money in advertising... that it's still a good thing because advertising will always be around. I never thought of it like that.
Sure... if the smartphone disappeared... Apple could be screwed (except that their other businesses are huge in their own right)
However... Google would also be screwed since they make a ton of money from Android (which would disappear too since it's a smartphone OS)
Interesting topic!
Advertising has been around since the beginning of man, smartphones not so much. It is also not a product that needs to be manufactured, shipped, and sold in a store, physical or online. Advertising isn't affected by supply constraints, or component shortages.
As more people spend more of their daily lives viewing websites the more valuable Internet advertising becomes. We can criticize the methods used to advertise,and block them, but nonetheless there will always be a need for businesses to get the general public aware of their products, and/or services.
You are assuming that Google can maintain its status as leader in search and advertising in the free world; that may not always be the case, nor is it the case that Amazon will always dominate online sales. All will have to work to maintain their positions in their markets, as will Apple.
What is known, is that Apple is a very adept consumer electronics company with a broad ecosystem, that spends huge amounts of its capital on both manufacturing technology and R&D for its products. Its culture is not a guarantee that it will be disruptive in the future, but there is the likelihood that it will be able to continue creating best of class products in those areas that it chooses to participate.
Smartphones aren't going anywhere any time soon, and Apple has handily won the smartphone war. The iPhone revenue stream is exceptionally huge, and has consistently grown, and that growth will eventually slow down, plateau, or go down slightly. I don't see how that's a problem if Apple is selling in one quarter what its competitors wished they sold in a year.
You're forgetting that many of Apple's other revenue streams are dependent on iPhones sales, but that's a pretty solid foundation to depend upon.
Don't also forget that Google makes more money from iOS users than from Android users, so it behooves them that the iOS devices continue to sell well, especially now when so many are fleeing the platform. Those switchers are bad for the Android OEMs, but so much for Google.
I did not once mention Google by name in my post. I was merely pointing out why investing in an advertising company might be more attractive than investing in a company that produces a physical product. Right now that company is Google but as you point out it could become another one in the future, and that company will become attractive to investors.
@sog35
Yes. But you do realize more then 60+% of Apple Stock are in institutional , pension or hedge fund? A few percentage belongs to Employees, Laurene Powell. There isn't enough investor interest in doing so.
Just shows you how the markets are rigged like the crisis that fu*** us up back in 2007.