bells

SpamSandwich said:

sumergo said:

lkrupp said:

SpamSandwich said:

I still find it miraculous AAPL continues to trade so low. The company is worth much more based on cash in the bank alone, but they don't play the game like Jeff Bezos knows how to play the game.

You are correct in that Apple refuses to play by the rules so Wall Street remains tepid in its valuation. Then we have the near constant barrage of pundits that say Apple has one foot in the grave since it doesn’t play by the rules and didn’t take their sage advice on what to do with their cash hoard. Maybe if Apple were deep in debt and had a massive P/E like Amazon they would get Wall Street’s blessing but I suspect not. Everybody is standing around waiting for Apple to stumble and die.

I suspect AAPL is also riding the general market buoyancy to some extent.  It will be interesting to see how AAPL (and the market as a whole) reacts to the 2018 mid-term results and the 2020 presidential election.  Only then will we know if the market is really booming (in step with the US economy over the last few years) or as a result of some other bizarre "trump effect" ;-)

Trump is the best thing to happen to US businesses and stockholders since Reagan.

anantksundaram said:

Superb moves by Apple and Tim Cook. Kudos.

Also, credit is due entirely where it is due, which means the passage of the recent tax plan and the hectoring/shaming of US corporations into putting the issue of investing in US, and bringing jobs back to the US, on the front-burner.

hodar said:

I find it amazing that Amazon Prime, which is technically FREE, offers more quality movies, than Netflix which charges me more per year, than Amazon Prime costs.  Add to that the made for Amazon movies and series, the fact that I can watch all 7 seasons of GoT, Westworld and other "Premium" channel specials - Netflix certainly falls short in comparison.

SpamSandwich said:

georgie01 said:

I am for small government and differ with many political positions Apple takes, but I totally agree with Apple on this. Even besides the important issue of it becoming harder for many businesses to compete, the content of the internet will also be at the hands of money making endeavours, instead of all content being treated equally as it is now.

We won’t see changes right away, but over time companies will make whatever changes they can get away with until the internet differs very little from the way network TV is.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was even partially a move to control ‘fake’ news. If content is monetised by service providers the news can be better controlled than it is now. Information control in the name of market freedom... It’s not worth it.

I'm in favor of a "free and open Internet", but I'm not in favor of forcing other people to fund your (or anyone else's) access to said Internet via taxes. If anyone can figure out how to get on the Internet for free without an Internet Service Provider (ISP) then by all means, have at it.

rwx9901 said:

Funny how some who are for net neutrality seem to believe they are somehow entitled to a service that somebody else provides.  Those businesses are not charities, they are businesses with a bottom line and responsibility to their shareholders.  They're job is to make money.  So, they will do so and if that means tweaking speeds to get there then so be it.  If one doesn't like it then don't buy it.  Simple concept.  And the sentence in this article that says "potentially radically reshaping the nature of the U.S. internet." is complete horse hockey and hyperbole.  All this essentially does is revert back to the way it was before this nonsensical policy was put into place to begin with.  It wasn't called "radical" back then now was it?  Now all of a sudden it's "radical".  Give me a break.