apple iigs

nolamacguy said:

apple iigs said:

BS. Thats what Tim Cook wants to do but he doesn't know how to do it proper. 

Tim Cook so far has pandered to wall street and its disgusting. Lets see. All those stock buybacks all those dividends. Precisely because Tim Cook hopes it will help the stock. Having lunch with Carl Ichan. Trying to position Apple as something it isn't. Get rid of this fool as CEO. I am tired of his kissing wall street. All of this and the company has lost a couple of hundred billion in value. Good job. So lets see has this helped the stock? Hell NO.

let me guess -- you're a "long-time" fan. love their products. but now you're...concerned. jobs is dead. innovation gone. did i miss anything, or is that about where you stand?

gnnoni said:

Apple started the iPod bussines because nobody wanted make drivers for Mac, they thinked it was a resource wasted to invest in Mac, how wrong they were. Maybe if Apple develops an VR glasses, maybeOculus will regret

shardsofme said:

And yet the same game is available in the resolutely kid-friendly Nintendo eShop. I think that tells you everything you need to know about how imbecilic Apple's current vetting policies are.

volcan said:

sog35 said:

regardless. I doubt any investor said to himself, "oh wow. Apple is buying back stock. That makes it a buy."

Regardless, Cook said they were, splitting the share price, doing a buy back and paying a dividend, all to benefit the shareholder. Why would he suddenly reverse course and issue more shares? I think they will stay the course. I could see them structuring some more corporate bonds if they wanted to buy a company. Debt is cheap right now. Better to not mess with the shares. Wall Street is too unpredictable. You should know as I remind you that the share price did not hit $150 in 2015 as you so boldly predicted.

bdkennedy said:

Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on. Besides, rumors are Apple is working on their own VR, so I could care less what that douche bag thinks.

sog35 said:

ibill said:

In my view, Steve Jobs did no better with managing Wall Street expectations, perhaps not even as good as Tim Cook is doing now.

I disagree. 

Steve Jobs did not have prolonged periods of Apple having a 10-12 PE.
Apple was never this ridiculously under valued like how it was from 2013-2014 and now.

thewhitefalcon said:

sog35 said:

And who's fault is that?

Did Tim Cook give us guidance for revenue for the rest of 2016?
Did he give us guidance for 2017?
Did he gives us guidance regarding what the install base will be in 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years?
Did he give us guidance for what he expects service revenue (the next growth product) to be in the next 3 years?

NO.

Or course Wall Street only looks 3 months ahead. Because that's all Tim Cook will talk about in solid terms.  He is too secretive about the future so Wall Street does not give them any credit for the future.

This goes back to what I've been saying for YEARS.  Tim Cook has no vision. Or he does but does not articulate it clearly to Wall Street. Wall Street sees Apple simply as a hardware company. Yesterday was the first time Apple even tried to hint at services being a massive part of Apple in the future. $30 billion in services is massive for 2015. Yet I don't see a single headline talking about that. Sad.  The reason is he should have been pushing the install base/services/monitize install base theme YEARS AGO. Now it looks like a desperate move.

Stock has lost $30 billion today. Total lost is over $250 billion since last year.  We could easily see $80 stock price in a few days. All because Apple is run by a CEO who has no idea how to control the narrative of the company.

Some people think the earth is flat or the US didn't land on the moon. Explaining things to these people doesn't work because they won't see reason. So why should Tim waste his time with the financial market equivalent?

Emericus said:

Based on these latest documents, I'm starting to see this a bit differently than before. Each side is attempting to prevent a certain kind of precedent from being set. For Apple, we all know what the precedent is because the media has covered it to death: Apple wants to avoid even implicitly supporting the idea that a governing body can compel it to hack and undermine the security of its own devices. But for the FBI it's a different precedent they want to avoid, a precedent set in motion by the release of iOS8 in 2014: the FBI wants to avoid supporting the idea that it's okay and legal for any tech company to design devices that thwart all attempts at entry by law enforcement or anyone else. While such devices and the networks they operate on will naturally keep my own legal emails and bank account numbers secure, they will certainly also become the haven for all manner of illegal behavior. And if allowed to be used freely in private and public, as iPhones are now, such devices over time could render many forms of law enforcement perpetually ineffective (perhaps they already are). Now, I don't work for law enforcement, and I'm not necessarily siding with the FBI here, but I'm starting to the see the bigger picture how they see it, and it does make some sense without being too paranoid. The issue is that so many people use smartphones and cellphones (just like so many people use roads, airspace, and building enclosures), it may not be in the public's best interest that these things be designed to thwart all law enforcement activities always. On that account, it might be worth the government's best legal efforts to basically force Apple to dismantle iOS8 and thus, in the bigger picture, teach all tech companies a basic lesson: so many people use these devices and networks, it is in the public's best interest that they all have some form of backdoor, even if the downside is increased likelihood of opportunistic hacking.