tele1234

maestro64 said:

What will be the equivalent name for this similar to Glassholes, This is really unimportant in the big scheme of things. This ranks right with Google Glasses and 3D Glass for TV. Most people will not be seen dead with these strapped to their heads. It has the same social stigma of the wearing the geeky 3D glasses.

We know most gamers especially those who can not wait for these spend most of their time in their parents basements so they do not care what the rest of us think.

Yeah the will sell some and make money, but this will not make Face money like other Apple products make for Apple, Even Apple hobby products will make more than this will.

I am also willing to bet once people use these we will begin hearing about issue like people were getting headaches from wearing Google glasses and the 3D glasses.

So you have no idea what an Oculus rift is, then? Or haven't followed the 2+ years of devkit usage that's been public for ages? Headaches aren't the problem, it's motion sickness.

Oculus' beef with Apple is that Apple doesn't have a computer, or a computer cable of having, a graphics card that meets the minimum system requirements to use the oculus on a playable level. It's a device for gaming, Apple hardware is not. This whole article is about as irrelevant as saying I can't boil water pouring it in my toaster. Different machines, different purposes.

sog35 said:

tele1234 said:

I'm a fan of this notion. I dislike mixing interests and investments; the two rarely go hand in hand. It's nice when they do, but all too often what would make an investment more valuable isn't what I'm personally interested in with a company.

except with a weak stock price you lose talent. Most of the top executives get 90% of their compensation from stock plans.

With a weak stock price you also get a ton of bad press such as:

Apple is doomed.
Tim Cook should be fired.
Apple is no longer innovative.

Like it or not any CEO of a public company needs to manage and protect the stock price.

I don't understand the logic you're applying here. As an investor, what interest do you have in Apple retaining talent, reputation or innovation? Look how much bad press and hate the likes of the Pharma of Insurance industries get; they're some of my best performing stocks and some of the best performing stocks overall.

If you think those three things, why would you hang onto the stock and not just panic sell?

Apple is, to me (and I'm sure millions more) a very stable, healthy stock. They've already got more than a half-trillion market cap, they're realistically not going to do a huge percentage more because the economy literally wouldn't support them making massive gains. Yes, I know there's been bigger companies in history but you have to compare the existing market cap with the limitations of what a market cap can be. I personally think $150 is a reasonable estimation on value which is why I'm hanging onto it; once the economy improves itself a little (yes, I'm optimistic about it) I can see Apple's stock being one of the fastest climbing back up. I doubt I'll be short term, but I care little for that - I'm thinking in a decade or so.

Look at the list of market caps: we have Apple, a seller of luxury goods. Microsoft, a business software provider and Google, a data collection/advertising agency. The rest of the list is a scattering of Mobile service providers, petrochemical consortia, retail outlets, banks, insurance companies and the likes. Do you think any of these companies are 'liked' for their products? No, they're money making enterprises with CEOs that protect the stock price by screwing over their customers just to make money. Apple is one of the very few companies out there that is both profitable and actually seems to give a damn about customers.

Apple's money-spinning is a product of locking people into a dependent ecosystem and keeping huge profit margins, and it works. I'd say Cook has done a fantastic job of protecting this and the stock price. I know we've seen the stock fall from 130-highs (pre-split) of 2010, but it's still the largest market cap out there.

sog35 said:

Look at what other companies have done since Sept 2012:

Google - stock up 110%
Facebook - up 225%
Netflix - up 1285%
Microsoft - up 78%
Yahoo - up 111%
HP - up 47%
Amazon - up 160%
Home Depot - up 120%
Costco - up 58%
Nike - up 160%
McDonalds - up 26%
Ford - up 25%
Apple - FUCKING 2%

So pathetic that horrible companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, and HP are returning 10x to 50x more than Apple.  Even the Dow, Nasdaq, and S&P500 have all returned 30-50% returns the since Sept 2012.

The main reason is because Tim Cook refuses to defend the stock and allows Wall Street BULLSHITERS to have free reign to spread lies without any retaliation.  Tim Cook has allowed total BULLSHIT supply chain checks from China to tank the stock from $130 to $102 today. Because Cook refused to dispute these lies, Apple shareholders and Apple employees have lost over $150 billion in equity.  Yet Cook has time to talk about gay rights, kid's learning coding, and loopholes for taxes.  FUCKING PATHETIC.  Cook needs to be replaced ASAP.

Do you have any evidence of wall street being bullshitters, or is this conjecture?

applejeff said:

sog35 said:

Its pathetic that the Microsoft CEO is able to twist numbers like this and receive Wall Street praise. This is despite Microsoft having a horrible product in Windows and having virtually no foothold in mobile.

The Microsoft CEO who came on board in April 2014 has increased the stock price 55% despite showing revenue and profit declines.

While Tim Cook has allowed Wall Street bullshiters to overtake the stock and showed the first annual stock price decline since 2008. 

Its a fucking joke that the Microsoft CEO can show stock gains with a total crap product like Windows while the Apple CEO can't even show stock gains while selling the most lucritive product in the history of man.

Under Steve Jobs Apple's PE was an average 20.
Since Cook has taken over the PE average is 12.  And now its close to 10.
If Apple was valued like a mediocre company (like Chlorox) it would be worth close to a TRILLION. 
This falls 100% on Cook because:

1. He allows Wall Street liars to continue to spew absolute BULLSHIT about the company
2. He constantly posts awesome earnings and then post weak as shit guidance for the next quarter
3. He wastes his time on issues that shareholders don't give a shit about: gay rights, kid's coding, and tax evasion.  Yet he spends no time articulating the vision of the company. He spends no time trying to convence investors that Apple is much more than just iPhone Inc.

4. He has dragged his feet to many times. Constantly reacting instead of being proactive.  He was late in bringing out a large iPhone. He was late in releasing a legit music streaming service. He is dragging his feet again regarding closing a live TV deal. Dragging his feet in releasing a new iPadAir and updated Macbooks. Dragging his feet with sticking to 16GB phones.

The price of Apple stock would obviously be important to you if you wanted to sell but not so much if you wanted to buy or hold the stock. If you plan to hold the stock, aren’t you better off with a CEO that is focussed on profitability and growing the business rather than a CEO that has one eye on the stock price?

I'm a fan of this notion. I dislike mixing interests and investments; the two rarely go hand in hand. It's nice when they do, but all too often what would make an investment more valuable isn't what I'm personally interested in with a company.