- Last Active
I think that both this article and the analysts missed some important points:This article states that the X is not the first or only $1,000 phone. That's true -- I paid close to that (with Apple Care and tax) for my 6+. But, it is the first iPhone where $1,000 was the STARTING point, the low end price.Conversely the analysts focus on the X as being "THE" new iPhone. They missed the point that Apple greatly expanded the newer marketing strategy they've been dabbling their toes in: Market a high end device at a premium price while offering lower end and/or older technology at "consumer" prices.So yes, the X is a premium device at a premium price and, as such, it WILL have a more limited market share. But, Apple has covered that in every increment all the way down to the SE. Specifically, Apple's base prices for its phones are:X $9998 $6997 $5496S $449SE $349That's a 300% spread in the price range. The X costs (nearly) 3 times that of the SE.It seems (to me) that, IF there was any hesitancy to go for the X it was less due to its actual price than the $300/43% leap from the 8 because, while the 8 lacks some of the bells and whistles it sports the same power train and, for many, makes for a better buy. So any lack of sales of the X were made up for by the 8 (or lower).So, all in all, any analyst who focuses on a single iPhone model is presenting a flawed analysis because Apple has left that single iPhone marketing strategy in the dust. You now have to look at the entire line-up. Looking at iPhone X sales is no more accurate than looking at SE sales.
I just upgraded from a 44mm Series 1 to a 44mm Series 4 -- because I could get a new one for $130 off from a third party vendor trying to clear stock. Yeh, the always on display of the Series 5 is a very nice feature -- particularly in meetings where you need to sneak a peek to get the time and doing a dramatic wrist raise is not in good taste. But, being retired, that feature is no big deal to me.But, this was a major upgrade from my Series 1 (which was running really well). To be honest, I noticed an improvement in speed, but surprisingly nothing dramatic because the Series 1 was already pretty quick.
But four things that are making a big difference for me:
1) The increased size of the icons make it a lot easier for my fat fingers to maneuver the home screen.
2) The increased font sizes make it a LOT easier to read while running (that's really nice).
3) Having a phone on my wrist means I no longer have to carry a phone around for safety in case I need to call for help.
4) The fall detection already kicked in: While running on a trail yesterday I tripped over a rock buried under some leaves and went down hard (partly because I was already moving at 6-7mph). And, it gently asked me if it should call for help -- which was doubly nice since I was out there alone and did not have my phone with me.
So, this Series 4 with LTE is already pretty sweet. And the Series 5 is obviously even better -- especially if your boss is lecturing you over something as it comes time for your bus to arrive.
We fought this battle back in the 70's & 80's trying to protect American Steel... Now the Mon river is lined with beautiful trees instead of ugly steel mills... Well, there are a few ghettos along the way: Homestead, Braddock, McKeesport, Dravosburg, Clairiton.... Globalization & free trade did not kill those mills, it was a response to their death after they were killed by foreign competition -- and it was a key part in rejuvenating a failing economy.
Protectionism didn't work then. It won't work now no matter how loud we chant USA! USA! USA!...
boltsfan17 said:mobird said:This isn't just a Apple problem, this is a USA problem...Today there was an article about former American intelligence agents pulling in $200-$400K salaries for spying on America for the UAE using American spy techinques.But, yeh, let's blame the Chinese! It's the politically correct thing to do. It distracts from Russia
corrections said:GeorgeBMac said:Apple is investing in AAPL? No, it is not investing in itself. It is doing two things:1). Giving away its profits to stock holders2) Propping up its own stock piceI read a few days ago (I forget where) that in the last couple years Apple's Earnings Per Share have increased 25% -- on the SAME PROFIT. That's all due to buybacks reducing the number of shares outstanding.But, Apple is not alone in its Financial Engineering. It seems most large U.S. companies are doing it.So, while "we" complain about China competing unfairly against U.S. corporations, those same U.S. corporations are refusing to invest in themselves.Perhaps China is not the problem?
The thing is, Apple can’t effectively spend 5x as much on R&D or plants and retail to get 5x the result. It can’t simply hire 5x as many people to get tasks done. So the options are, hold the money in tbills or distribute to shareholders—the owners of the company.
Quite obviously, reducing shares outstanding is going to affect the earnings per share at the “same earnings.” It’s not a trick, it’s very basic math.
Reducing shares by buying them back and retiring them is the opposite of printing new shares. When companies issue new shares, they are diluting the value of the shares held by their investors. This is the opposite. Why the confusion?
The complaints about China isn’t that companies are investing in their future, but that they are stealing IP, copying the design without the same concern for safety and quality, and maintaining poor working conditions that brutalize labor and expose workers to very bad conditions. That’s why apple has been forcing its suppliers to reach a much higher level of standards for worker rights, environmental protection, safety and product quality.
China is a huge problem. Look at what they are doing to their own air and water.
Giving away money to anybody, no matter who it is, is not investing in the company. Period.
"Apple can’t effectively spend 5x as much on R&D or plants and retail to get 5x the result. It can’t simply hire 5x as many people to get tasks done. So the options are, hold the money in tbills or distribute to shareholders"
So, you are saying that Apple has nothing to invest in -- so it's better off giving the money away. That's disturbing. But it may, unfortunately, be true. It is becoming increasingly common among U.S. corporations while we complain about "unfair competition". Sad.
"Quite obviously, reducing shares outstanding is going to affect the earnings per share at the “same earnings.” It’s not a trick, it’s very basic math"
It's known as "Financial Engineering"
"Reducing shares by buying them back and retiring them is the opposite of printing new shares. When companies issue new shares, they are diluting the value of the shares held by their investors. This is the opposite."
Not quite: When a company issues new shares, the goal is NOT to dilute the shares. It is to raise money in order to invest in the company. You are correct though that it is the opposite of buying back shares in order to give the money away.
"The complaints about China isn’t that companies are investing in their future, but that they are stealing IP, copying the design without the same concern for safety and quality, and maintaining poor working conditions that brutalize labor and expose workers to very bad conditions. "
Yeh, that's Trump's story line. It's mostly bull. But people buy into it.
"China is a huge problem. Look at what they are doing to their own air and water."
China is one of the original backers of the Paris Climate Change accords (as were we) and continues to live up to the agreement. The U.S. is the ONLY one who pulled out so it can promote more coal fired power plants -- and generate Trump votes in West Virginia.
This is good. $4.3 Billion is a lot of money.
But, Huawei spends 4-5 times that on R&D each year ($15-$20B annually).
Meanwhile Apple spends around 20 times that buying back its own stock rather than investing in the company ($75-$100B annually).
Yeh, they're doing good. But they could do a LOT better!
American companies didn't become powerhouses by making stockholders rich but by investing and growing themselves. Yes, Apple is doing a good job growing themselves. But they could be doing much, much better if their resources were utilized to grow and future-proof their company.
So, Tim is right, as far as his statement goes. But let’s not forget who built up China - American bean counters who, it turns out, really didn’t know which beans they should be counting.
First it was, ‘Chinese labor is cheap’ so let’s manufacture there. And then ‘oh crap, the Chinese don’t have proper infrastructure’ so let’s get them started with that. Then more second tier Chinese suppliers sprung up, and more infrastructure was put in place. And then large regions such as Shenzhen turned into massive draws for subsistence farmers looking for a better life. And they morphed into a large and highly skilled labor force. And then even more infrastructure was put in place.
But the bean counters neglected to take full account of the logistics needed to ship all the bits and pieces all around the world. And what might have worked OK 20 years ago is woefully out of date today. But we can’t change our sourcing now. China has the infrastructure, right??!
So yea, China has all that going for it now. I begrudge them not. But the US, and Europe, can and should have that too.
All the excuses in the world can’t take away from the fact that American CEOs, CFOs and their assorted bean counters sold out their communities and their company rank and file to get a few extra pennies on the dollar out of product so they could please their stockholders and get those extra bonuses, while their US factories got shut down and their once loyal employees got a pick slip. That’s a f-ing bitter pill to swallow.
Tim, do better!America was built by hungry workers working for committed, dedicated owner/managers with vision and long range goals -- From Carnegie to Jobs. When we get back to that, the jobs will return. Not before..We can make all the excuses. But the fact remains: the jobs went to those places who did the best, cheapest work -- despite our protectionist tariffs. And, they won't be coming back until we can make things better and cheaper -- even if we try protectionist tariffs -- again.
lkrupp said:Just another way of saying only stupid people buy Apple products. Casting spells but he could see right through them because a wizard too? My ass.
He wasn't dissing Steve or marginalizing him or his talents. Quite the opposite. What he said was:
""I have yet to meet any person who [could rival Jobs] in terms of picking talent, hyper-motivating that talent, and having a sense of design of, oh, this is good [or] this is not good,""
And, he said that he himself was only a "minor wizard" -- so he couldn't do what Steve did.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------These two, in their later years actually opened up and showed respect for each other. Mutual respect between giants.
Today things seem to be all about beating the other guy at any and all costs -- and showing respect is a sin. These two (eventually) rose above that nonsense.
T-Mobile isn't afraid to step out of the pack and offer customers things other carriers don't even think of...
I've been very happy with their service.
And, when swapping phones with my grandson (I got his 7 and he got a new Xr) -- his was on Sprint and I'm on T-Mobile I got to see the difference: My 'new' phone was activated on T-Mobile in literally a couple seconds. But, it took 2 days and 3 trips between the Apple and the Sprint stores to activate his -- And, the major Sprint store we went to didn't even have a SIM card for it!
Then, I saw it again on Monday when I paired my new Series 4 LTE Apple Watch: T-Mobile activated it as part of the pairing process virtually seamlessly even though I had never activated a watch with them previously. So Smooth and Easy! (You'd think was Apple!)