tmay

About

Username
tmay
Joined
Visits
372
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
5,325
Badges
2
Posts
3,832
  • Apple quietly bought $17B more after record high $24B Q2 stock repurchase [u]

    crowley said:
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:

    As for leading the tech industry. I disagree.
    Well invest all your money in Spotify and Netflix and Samsung and commodity cloud providers and stop posting your genius ideas for free on Internet forums. 

    Clearly you know so much. If only Apple knew what you did. We bow before your great intellect you wise man of incredible logic and foresight. 

    I’m only surprised you didn’t spend more time explaining how much you love Huawei. 
    How about first supporting the comment that led to my post?

    How is Apple already leading the tech industry? That is baloney and I only mentioned the tip of the iceberg!

    Let's be realistic.

    If Apple had had the foresight, it would have snapped up Netflix long ago instead of having to invest billions - for other companies - to provide content and try to establish itself in yet another saturated market!

    Are you implying that Apple wasn't late to streaming? Where was the foresight? Spotify since 2008. Apple Music since 2015. Apple chose a different path originally. Just like with screen size.

    The reality is that even a few short years ago Apple had no idea what it was going to do or where it was headed. It was firmly entrenched in iPhone and trying to leverage services more profitably. It had Apple TV as a hobby, the Mac business and iPad. Then Apple Watch - CE! The tech industry spans far more than CE!

    It hoarded (thanks to iPhone) and that's fine but don't try to make claims that don't even begin to hold water. However much you love Apple.

    When Apple starts producing cutting edge technology from the top right down to the bottom and impacting a far broader swathe of technologies, you might be able to make such claims but right now they are completely out of place. 

    Instead of going on the attack, explain why you feel you can make those affirmations and then we will see how your explanations hold up.
    Avon, stick to your Huawei lipstick. 

    Netflix and Spotify haven't made much if any money across a decade of frantic building. Apple could have bought and developed those companies instead of focusing on building the future of mobile devices and platforms, but then instead of earning a trillion dollars and sitting on a trillion dollar enterprise, it would own Netflix and Spotify, two massive money pits that won't ever make substantial money. Their share prices have gone up, but that's all bullshit investment erecting a "house of cards" (ughh) much like the huge bubble of AOL that was "worth" lots until investors realized that no it wasn't. 
    That might be true of Spotify, but Netflix has been reliably in the black for the past ten years and recently passed £1bn/year in net income.  They're plenty profitable.

    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=netflix+profit+2009+to+2019
    Reliably?

    It's still early in the streaming war.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/disney-will-win-streaming-battle-with-netflix-analyst-2019-08-07
    watto_cobra
  • Editorial: A record $4.3B R&D spend proves Apple is building for the future


    chaicka said:
    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.
    Pardon my limited knowledge on stock and how it should be managed. What I think is buying back own stock is also important. Look at Daimler (parent company of Mercedes Benz) which is now having a largest shareholder from China. I think swedish car maker Volvo is another example. In short, managing those stock in the open market is also important, otherwise one day Apple may no longer be an 'American' firm overnight.
    Share buy backs from American companies over the past 10 years have little to do with managing their stock and are mostly simply to boost stock prices,   And Apple is FAR from being the only one.   But, while Asian companies reinvest profits in their companies, American companies hand it out as stockholder welfare.
    Given the available evidence that Huawei is a SOE(State Owned Enterprise), I'm not surprised that Huawei do in fact have to answer to their only stockholder, the CCP. That's quite a difference from the operation of any American corporation listed on a public stock exchange, given the lack of financial transparency of Huawei.
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Editorial: A record $4.3B R&D spend proves Apple is building for the future

    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.
    Apple spent that $4.3B just for the 2019 June quarter. Apple spend almost the same amount as Huawei per year, which has telecom, consumer, and server divisions consuming that total R&D, and for that, Apple generates much more revenue, and more importantly profit, than Huawei. Maybe you should do a bit more research. You are beginning to sound like the crazy American Uncle of AvonB7.


    AppleExposedlolliverRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Editorial: No, Apple isn't in a post-iPhone era, and won't be anytime soon

    avon b7 said:
    iPhone is a massive success.
    Analysts: Apple is a one-trick pony! They need other products with great revenue stream!

    Other products and service are growing massively up to 50%.
    Analysts: Apple is doomed!

    If we were really in a post-iPhone era Apple would not be releasing new services for iPhone.

    zoetmb said:
    The iPhone being less than 50% of Apple's business isn't a bad thing, it's a positive.   Too much dependency on a single product line is a bad business strategy.   Apple's income being more diverse is a strong positive and the fact that it's more split between hardware and services is even greater positive as it protects Apple against downturns in the economy and if any strong competitors appear.   

    How many articles were there in recent years stating that Apple was no longer a computer company, but an "iPhone" company.   That was a weakness, not a strength.  

    I'm certainly no genius, but even I can see that a more diverse Apple business is better for Apple and for Apple's customers.  Mac revenue is up 5% year over year, and that's is a great thing, because Mac was becoming such a small part of Apple, I had concerns over how much attention Apple would give it going forward.  iPad is up 15.5%, Services are up 15.9% and Wearables/Home Accessories is up an outstanding 36.5%.   Considering the world economy is not in great shape and that Chinese consumers seem to be spending less across the board, I think Apple is doing great in spite of the fact that they won't beat last fiscal's record revenue and earnings.   Not every year can be a record year. 

    And while iPhone revenue was less than 50% in Q3, it's still 61.7% fiscal year-to-date, so this is much ado about nothing. 
    Still Apple’s services and accessories mostly depend on owning other Apple hardware. For me the tell of Apple becoming a completely different company is if they ever make iMessage cross platform. 

    zoetmb said:
    The iPhone being less than 50% of Apple's business isn't a bad thing, it's a positive.   Too much dependency on a single product line is a bad business strategy.   Apple's income being more diverse is a strong positive and the fact that it's more split between hardware and services is even greater positive as it protects Apple against downturns in the economy and if any strong competitors appear.   

    How many articles were there in recent years stating that Apple was no longer a computer company, but an "iPhone" company.   That was a weakness, not a strength.  

    I'm certainly no genius, but even I can see that a more diverse Apple business is better for Apple and for Apple's customers.  Mac revenue is up 5% year over year, and that's is a great thing, because Mac was becoming such a small part of Apple, I had concerns over how much attention Apple would give it going forward.  iPad is up 15.5%, Services are up 15.9% and Wearables/Home Accessories is up an outstanding 36.5%.   Considering the world economy is not in great shape and that Chinese consumers seem to be spending less across the board, I think Apple is doing great in spite of the fact that they won't beat last fiscal's record revenue and earnings.   Not every year can be a record year. 

    And while iPhone revenue was less than 50% in Q3, it's still 61.7% fiscal year-to-date, so this is much ado about nothing. 
    Still Apple’s services and accessories mostly depend on owning other Apple hardware. For me the tell of Apple becoming a completely different company is if they ever make iMessage cross platform. 
    Why, what sort of revenue would a free chat app on Android create? How is that more healthy for their earnings? 

    Nah. Of course Apple profit is dependent on selling Apple products. That's the whole point. Services are nice but what you're saying is Apple should back away from its immensely successful model of selling premium hardware and become a services-oriented company. Why? That's one viable model, but why on earth would they want to stop doing what they do best? Services augment their already healthy business. It doesn't replace it.

    iMessage and Facetime for Android is a GREAT idea if, Apple charges a monthly fee. Which may or may not be what Rogifan suggested.

    Almost everyone agrees iMessage is the superior texting app. At $1.99 for both Facetime and iMessage Apple could monetize users of stolen IP while allowing Apple users to have access. This not only makes Apple products even more attractive but like I said allows Apple to monetize knockoffs. I can EASILY see iMessage/Facetime on android surpassing WhatsApp and Skype or whatever crap they use.

    They're "cool" you get to finally be a blue bubble and get secure Facetime with group calling with all your Apple friends for just 1.99 a month.
    So you suggest Apple makes Facetime and iMessage a paid service for macOS and iOS users in order to expand to Android. Even if not, your Android friends will not pay 1.99/month to chat with you dear Apple friend. They already pay for SMS to telcos, since there will be two subscriptions iMessage must be split in two separate apps for SMS and iCloud (iMessage). Since this is not possible iMessage will include only iCloud messages, not SMS and as such it will not be as functional as on iOS. A paid iMessage app on Android has no chance to survive among free apps like Viber, WhatsApp, Messenger and a multitude of others.

    NO, NO, NO.

    Why would Apple charge their users for a service that was free?
    Because the only Apple service we saw on Android is a paid one: Apple Music. Your suggestion may create deep-spaghetti legal issues stemming from anti-trust law.

    I've thought of that but Facetime especially costs Apple a lot of money to operate and Apple operates these services without data mining and ads.

    Worst that can happen is Apple pull the App from android.





    It's possible but the government may claim it's unfair that Apple charges for competing knockoffs to pay for their hard work. Then again, no one forces you to pay when you have free apps like WhatsApp.
    You won't find anyone itching for Messages on Android. WhatsApp is Messages for Android. In fact, for many iOS users it is also the default instant messaging app. I do not know any iOS users that even use it, even occasionally. My wife only uses WhatsApp on her iPhone XR.

    And after WhatsApp comes Telegram.
    Well, for starters, millions of teenage girls in the U.S. certainly would be keen for Messages on Android, so, your anecdotal evidence isn't universal, making your statement "you won't find anyone itching for Messages on Android" absolutely false, and quite typical of you.
    watto_cobra
  • Editorial: No, Apple isn't in a post-iPhone era, and won't be anytime soon

    avon b7 said:
    When Apple dropped 'computer' from the name the logic was 'we are not only a computer company'.

    Post iPhone (whether we are there already or approaching that point) only means that the dependency on iPhone as the biggest revenue driver has passed. Not unlike when they dropped computer from the name and became a 'phone' company.

    There is no connection to the company being doomed.

    One of the takeaways from the call was that tethering services to iPhone wasn't a goal unto itself.

    The Mac, as much as I dislike the direction of the last few years, is driving far more revenues now, as a bit player within the company (when compared to the phone business) than ever before. If they were to spin the company off it would be a mega corporation.

    iPhone will probably end up in a similar situation at some point (unless there are major changes in the phone business model) and non-iPhone tethered services might become the bread and butter earner.

    Then there are the big unknowns, like cars etc and areas that might seem unthinkable now, like Apple licencing its hardware to third parties. 


    And yet, for all that, Apple's iPhone user base keeps growing, even in China, and is expected to pass 1 billion users WW by no later than Q1 2020, countering the marketshare meme of a few posters here, including yourself.



    AppleExposedlolliverwatto_cobra