rogifan_old

ac1234 said:

vvswarup said:

Wall Street believes that making money and investing in the future are mutually exclusive. To please Wall Street to the degree you want, Apple will have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abandon the very principles that have brought Apple to its current position. I don't think it's worth it.

Nonsense - Apple has to articulate and demonstrate an exciting trajectory beyond the iPhone.  So far the market is not impressed with what they have seen vis a vis HOMEKIT / Beats / Apple TV / streaming content negotiation failure / etc.

Nah they'd just find something else to be D&G over. Remember the decline in the last calendar quarter is all based on rumors of an iPhone sales decline, not anything Apple has officially reported. In FY 2015 Apple revenue grew 28% to over $230B. Earnings grew 35% to $53B. Yet the stock will be down this year over 4%. It makes no sense and just shows that Apple <> AAPL.

ac1234 said:

CNBC's Herb Greenberg just announced Tim Cook as one of the most challenged CEOs for 2016 - need for more innovation - iPhone 7s won't cut it.

IMHO, the floundering execution of launches like HOMEKIT / Apple TV / movie content / $$ wasters like Beats are dragging the stock down and contributing to the negative narrative.

 

CNBC is constantly negative on Apple. Google stock is up double digits this year but I can't think of one thing they did that could be called innovative. Trying to turn your company into a Berkshire Hathaway wannabe isn't innovative it's laughable.

Nilay Patel at the Verge just ran a piece about what he thinks the site got wrong in 2015. Two of the things he mentioned: Watch revolutionizing wearables industry; Samsung designing a better smart watch than Apple. For the first one, absolutely nobody was expecting that or predicting it. You won't find one article on the Verge or anywhere else claiming the Watch would be some revolutionary product. Most of the tech press spent 2015 mocking it and mocking the category in general. As far as the second item, that's of course totally subjective. To me the Gear S 2 looks incredibly cheap. And I have yet to see a video of it in use that looks more intuitive than anything else on the market. The tech press just jumped on this rotating bezel as though it was somehow the greatest thing ever that no one had done before. Oh and how many of these 'better than Watch' smart watches has Samsung sold? I've seen more people wearing Fitbits and Watches than anything from Samsung.

So basically ignore other analysts guesses in favor of his guesses. 

This is nonsense but why do I get the feeling Apple will say that and then all of sudden there will be a person of color in the SVP ranks. I'm convinced the only reason they updated the executive page on Apple's website to include VPs reporting to Cook is so that page would look more diverse (he has two women of color reporting to him). 

How does one one define diversity anyway? Eddy Cue is Cuban (his first name is Eduardo, middle name Horacio) and speaks fluent Spanish. Their chip guy who was recently promoted is from Israel. Jony Ive is British, Tim Cook is gay, Angela Ahrendts is female. Is diversity only defined by having a black person in the executive ranks?

Apple isn't AAPL. there's nothing Tim Cook can do to change that. Get out of the stock if it causes you that much pain.