- sacto joe
- Last Active
One note of caution:
I do have a-fib. I found out just recently (my Apple Watch caught an abnormally high heart rate), and will be undergoing a procedure called atrial ablation very soon now. I just tested the Apple Watch approach. The first reading I got did not show a-fib (sinus rhythm). The second reading, I made sure not to touch my left hand with my right and only touch the crown. It caught the a-fib. Tried it again, purposefully touching my other hand. Sinus rhythm. One more time, being careful not to touch my other hand. A-fib.
My wife and I attended this meeting. As regards the “inclusiveness” proposition, the inclusiveness of conservatives has been strangely absent when they held all the US seats of power in their iron grip. Besides the group behind this (National Center for Public Policy Research) being capable of any despicable act to push their agenda (see https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/The-fear-merchants-3105103.php ), the specious arguments they came up with were simply laughable.
Soli said:StrangeDays said:seanismorris said:Soli said:seanismorris said:Before buying an Apple Watch for this feature, you might want to listen to real cardiologists on YouTube.
If you listen to a cardiologist they’ll tell you the Apple Watch has questionable value. Just because a couple instances of the heart monitor gets a person in to see their doctor and there is a problem, that leaves out thousands (?) of unneeded visits and stress that results. The cardiologist explains that the tests themselves can be harmful (it’s not just listening to the heart). It’s a numbers game...
Now if you’re an older person or a person with a known problem, owning an Apple Watch makes a lot more sense (if you bought it for that reason).
What else ya got?
So I had a Series 2 Watch. I was at the WorldCon in San Jose last year, and found myself pooping out from just walking around. I checked my heartbeat with my Apple Watch and it registered 145 BPM. Sat down and rested for about 10 minutes. Rechecked and it was still 135 BPM. Woke up that night and checked it lying in bed. 135 BPM. When I got home, went to Urgent Care. Told the doctor, and had to insist they do a cardiogram on me. When the doctor saw the readout, she literally turned white and called the ambulance.
Not only did I catch my atrial fib and my atrial flutter, I also discovered a major issue with my left lung that had gone undetected until then.
Apple has not changed its direction since Steve Jobs was alive. Some of us have literally been saying Apple deserves a 30 P/E since the Great Recession. But it had AT LEAST 3 trips down to sub-10 P/E in that time, generally floating at an average P/E of about 14.
For those of us primarily invested in AAPL from that time who were also forced into retirement by the GR and thus had to liquidate shares to live, we absorbed a LOT of loss at those abysmal prices.
That all changed when Apple started using its massive cash position to buy back cheap AAPL stock. Why? Cumulatively, Apple bought back over 1/3 of its outstanding stock float from its peak back in 2013. And it paid an average price per share of an astonishing $150/share.
The result for the longer term investor was to see their percentage per share ownership of the company increase markedly. In essence, Apple "invested" in itself on behalf of its long term investors. It could have chosen to spend the buyback money on dividends. But dividends are taxed, while buybacks are not.
And there was another non-obvious impact: The percentage of long term investors versus short term market players has vastly increased largely due to the buybacks. You can see that if you look at the volumes traded before Apple started its buybacks versus lately. Now, that doesn't mean that there still isn't tremendous volatility in AAPL. But the day of the huge drops down to single digit P/E's are gone for good. There are just too many buy-and-hold investors that will refuse to panic out of AAPL. And thus stock manipulators can no longer easily push it over a cliff, like was done constantly in the bad old days.
Meanwhile, Apple continues to grow, huge company that it is. The fake "law of large numbers" propaganda has been completely proven false in Apple's case.
Now, I have to honestly admit that this latest move towards finally fairly valuing AAPL has taken me by surprise, even though I long predicted that the worm would eventually turn. But a lot of that is down to the completely mishandled pandemic that has begun (yes, begun) stalking the world and this country. A company like Apple that has its moral values, has always stuck to its knitting, and is in the market niche it occupies, was pretty much destined to succeed fantastically in this environment, relatively speaking. But it was completely unpredictable that this administration and the Republicans that have gone to the wall enabling it would make such an incredible hash of protecting US citizens from that pandemic.
Sorry if that seems political, but it's simply fact.
entropys said:I guess this could be spun as Apple wanting to emphasise the growing importance of services as a revenue stream, making hardware less important as revenue. The thing is though, much, much more than any other company providing services, ultimately Apple will have to rely on sales of that hardware to grow services revenue.
As a general rule, all Apple services require an Apple device. If you don’t own an Apple device you are unlikely to use Apple services. Apple Music on android is about the only one I can think of off hand, and I bet that isn’t that popular.
Moving hardware prices up into the Burberry market, and the limits that places on hardware growth, ultimately threatens services revenue growth. You can only extract additional revenue from existing hardware owners to a point. Ultimately in Apple’s business model, hardware purchases have to expand to also grow services revenue.
It's true, but with an important caveat. In his article "Lasts Longer" http://www.asymco.com/2018/09/13/lasts-longer/ , Horace Diedu points out the error of thinking about Apple in terms of "market share" rather than "installed base". Robert Paul Leitao put it this way recently on ped30.com:
"The violent sell-off in Apple illustrates a clear and pervasive misunderstanding of Apple’s emerging revenue model and a knee-jerk unwillingness to forego conventional approaches to the valuation of the company.
Apple has entered a “post-iPhone era” in which revenue and profit growth will be driven less by reported device unit sales and more by an expanding global base of device owners leveraging the most advanced eco-system of devices and services on the planet.
The robust global market for pre-owned iPhones through both formal and informal channels is not reflected in Apple’s quarterly unit sales. It is, however, reflected in the fast growth of Services revenue.
Nothing about Apple’s fundamentals has changed. The company reported record September quarter revenue, net income and earnings per share. Despite very heavy forex pressures, management is guiding to the highest quarterly revenue in the company history in the December quarter which will deliver record quarterly revenue, net income and earnings per share (again)."
So it's NOT true that "Moving hardware prices up into the Burberry market, and the limits that places on hardware growth, ultimately threatens services revenue growth." At least not for Apple.
plantdude said:Why would anyone pay $749 or more for a phone? That is a ridiculous amount of money.
Abalos65 said:corrections said:Abalos65 said:And you were wrong about Apple's supply chain being prepared for the coronavirus, not more so than other companies. Are you willing to admit that?
Instead, I noted that Apple is well positioned to get through a temporary problem, and contrasted that with the situation for Huawei and other Android makers who are seeing not only sales disruptions, but are desperately dependent on year-round volume sales, trade shows, retail discounting, and Chinese sales to a far greater degree than Apple.
It is impossible to argue that Apple is not prepared for crisis after turning around sales in China last year and surviving previous supply chain disasters such as the devastation in Japan.
On the other hand, the wild media narratives of doom described in the article have been wrong, wrong, wrong over the last year. Point your waging finger where it belongs.
In the editorial:
"But all that mysterious complexity serves a critically important function. It makes Apple resilient to crisis." Again, about the supply chain, not sales. Also note the absolute of resilient.
"If there's any need to be concerned about who will be affected by any global event—including the most recent coronavirus in China—it's certainly not Apple that anyone needs to voice concerns about." This is below a large portion of text praising Apple's supply chain as magical (Japan, smelters, previous virus, the whole nine yards), clearly implying the supply chain will be unaffected, not sales.
How hard is it to admit you were wrong?
Look. Apple is absolutely in better shape to withstand any slowdown due to the '19 novel coronavirus, simply because of its massive cash flow. But what is the source of that cash flow? It stems from its "magical" JIT manufacturing setup of stupendous dimensions and highest quality. Sure, it takes time to set the JIT wheels in motion when they've come to a halt. But guess what: They ALWAYS come to a halt during Chinese New Year! All that's happened is that they've stayed halted a while longer.
Indeed, if Apple wanted to, they could have spun up the machine sooner. But instead, they've chosen to keep those gathering places closed, at no small expense to the company, helping to save lives. Because, you see, that matters to the leadership of Apple more than mere profit.
When Apple feels that it's safe enough, it'll turn the key and open its factories and its stores. And all that pent up demand will eventually be satisfied, since people who buy into the Apple ecosystem are extremely loyal. Once things recover in a month or two, Apple will actually begin to see an increase in sales over and above what would have been expected.
You said: "And you were wrong about Apple's supply chain being prepared for the coronavirus, not more so than other companies." Nope. The supply chain IS prepared for the '19 novel coronavirus. Once the green light is given, Apple will turn the key and be back in business.
But, as DED said, those competitors that are living close to their vest with very little profit are going to have a much harder time overcoming the disruption.
Next time, try getting your objective glasses on and actually reading what it is that DED wrote.
Now, it does have to be said that, in countries like China where industries are heavily supported by the state, they don't necessarily have to make a profit to "stay in business". (They also don't have to concern themselves with how many people die over their screwups.) But they have other problems, not the least of which is that subsidizing businesses is a good way to weaken them. And it isn't possible to create creativity and ingenuity by fiat. IOW, before China can truly step up to match Apple, it's going to have to give it's people substantially more freedom.
Good luck with that.
Nothing really different than all the multitudes that go after Apple because of their deep pockets. Greedy leaches, every one.
Apple, OTOH, dares to make a computer ecosystem so desirous that folks are happy to pay them top dollar. They take care of their customers, and their customers take care of them. No greed basis whatsoever, but rather a virtuous cycle.