minisu1980

dysamoria said:

randominternetperson said:

slurpy said:

sog35 said:

This is another of example of the Genius of Cook.

Closing this deal with Nintendo is just the beginning of the Apple+Nintendo partnership. Cook is a master of closing deals. Great job Mr Cook

Cook is a genius now? But you have 62,017 rants each day, raging that he's not fit to lead Apple and demanding he step down ASAP, and you consistently call him every name in the book. Are you bipolar or something? You're really a piece of work. Maybe you took your meds today? Who knows.

Come on.  You called on him to change.  He's changed.  Enjoy the new Cook-admiring sog.

We didn't call on him to arbitrarily change his extreme behavior to the opposite extreme. It's still irrational and extreme behavior. 

So saying that Tim Cook is doing a good job is extreme behavior?

if I posted this under fog35 instead of sog35 would you still think its extreme behavior?

Nothing I said is irrational or extreme. 

Its extreme to you because you can't reconcile the fact that people opinions change.

gmgravytrain said:

I suppose Huawei can definitely overtake Apple in sales if they're selling $50 phones? smartphones? to third-world nations like India, Africa and South America. I'm sure Wall Street will be happy to claim Apple is being destroyed by Huawei in terms of market share. I'm sure Huawei will also exceed Apple in smartphone sales growth. I must be getting too old to really understand what makes a company successful. Maybe times have changed. I don't quite understand how growth necessarily makes a company valuable and successful. I only understand how to balance books and how the books need to be kept in the black. Sure, I realize people can keep using more credit but that leads most people into a hole they can't climb out of.

In Wall Streets eyes a successful tech company is one that burns through it's VC funding to gain market share. Then IPO and burn through the money that brought in, albeit at a slower rate, until:

1) The company achieves an unassailable market share (Google, Microsoft, Amazon), then when the money runs dry, raise prices to a profitable level as their is no viable alternative.

2) The company goes under because they are not profitable. Paradoxically, this is usually accelerated by the company using investor funds to buy another company that is actually profitable in an attempt to buy them some more time to figure out how to sell their own companies product at a profit. In this instance Wall Street is out of the stock long before the collapse of the company and all the jobs it takes with it.

The stock market seems to be run so differently from running a household or most businesses and it makes little sense to me. A company shouldn't be able to keep burning cash or undercutting the competition to gain market share. It's not a sustainable way to run a business, so what's so praiseworthy about it. Don't analysts see this doesn't work in the long run. A company like Samsung might be able to do it as long as its other business ventures are profitable. I wouldn't think there was any way a smaller company could survive. It would have been much better for Apple if they had also branched out into other profitable businesses then they wouldn't have to rely so heavily on the iPhone.

It's not that Apple has not branched out, it is a case of them being victims of their own success (iPhone). 104% of profits in Q3, if iPhone only made 30% of profits then Apple other products would comprise a much larger portion of their earnings which, as stupid as this sounds, would probably help the stock price. Look to services by 2020, if growth stay more or less the same they will have earnings in services in line with many other ridiculously high P/E companies that only have services as their sole source of income. Will that force Wall Street to value the stock at the same P/E, doubtful, but it should overall increase the stock price as iPhone will make up less of the whole.

I'm fairly certain Huawei's overtaking of Apple will be easier said than done but meanwhile Wall Street will say it's going to put more nails in Apple's coffin.  What really upsets me is Apple is spending so much money on R&D and capex and yet critics keep saying iPhones are no better than Chinese smartphones at half the price.  I can't even imagine how that's possible but my thinking is wrong.  It just goes against all the things I've learned over the years.  Quality usually costs more money to produce.  Besides, what has happened to Apple's economies of scale?  Is that no longer effective against smaller rival smartphone companies?

Quality does cost more to produce. Economies of scale usually only help with profitability, which Apple has no problems with. The main issue is currently Apple leans heavily on selecting technologies other companies manufacture or in Apple technologies that are easy to copy once the research and development has been done. The A series chip and secure enclave are the biggest Apple developed tech that is not easily copied. Eventually, Apple will have a much larger amount of hard to copy in house developed technologies and that will make all the difference.