gmgravytrain

ericthehalfbee said:

Dracarys said:

You can't compare the 8 year start of Spotify vs Apple, because the streaming market wasn't near what it is today 8 years ago. Spotify did all the hard legwork, Apple jumped in once the market was ready and really didn't have to do all that much work to compete.

On the flip side, one could argue that with an established player in the market it makes it far tougher for a company (Apple) to convince people to use their service over an established one.

50 million is damn impressive. Looks like that Beats buy was a bargain.

Yet everyone moaned and groaned about how Apple was throwing a paltry $3B down the toilet. Why? Because everyone seems to know how to run Apple better than Apple does. I can't wait until Apple builds up a video streaming service. I'm sure it will happen or Apple wouldn't be producing its own series. If Apple bundles that service with AppleMusic like Amazon is doing, it will be absolutely amazing for Apple and Apple users. I'd be happy to pay for a yearly subscription of streaming video and music if it cost around $120. Apple could easily afford it and I'm sure it would drive hardware sales across the board. If Apple could come out with some relatively low-cost Siri device to control those services by voice, it could have a shot at competing with Alexa and Echo devices.

It just seems as though Apple is leaving money on the table by not offering a Mac Mini that uses the latest Intel hardware and is user upgradeable. Maybe Apple would rather sell some other products like the AppleTV or 21" iMacs instead of the Mac Mini. I simply don't see why it should be so difficult for Apple to upgrade the Mac Mini. It isn't rocket science so it has to be something about how Apple wants to differentiate its products. I'm sure Mac Minis would sell somewhat well because the refurbished Mac Minis disappear from Apple's website rather quickly.

 Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time trying to figure out Apple's reasons for doing the things they do. I would personally like to have a Mac Mini that supports 4K @ 60 fps for my next 4K HDTV. I want a Mac Mini because it will run full OSX and not some AppleTV that runs some TViOS. Apple may have good reasons for not doing what I need but I'd at least like to know why. It's just somewhat frustrating to see other computer companies being able to do things Apple doesn't seem to have any interest in. Maybe Apple only wants to sell profitable products and I suppose I can't fault them for wanting that.

chasm said:

If you are looking for who started the whole "iPhone X is a flop" thing, it was Nikkei, then the Wall Street Journal, then Bloomberg/Mark Gurman. In that order. Other sites (with varying degrees of headline accuracy) just echoed and amplified those three. I love that they were not just wrong, they literally could not have been more wrong. Take note of who lied and who pushed the lie, and don't believe them again (unless you like being fooled).

Those people who are in AAPL for the long haul are enjoying a nice reward for their steady-handedness, egged on by Buffett. He wasn't the only one that saw things clearly and acted precipitously; Apple bought back $25B of their stock in the previous quarter.

If they'd bought all of that $25B of stock at $155.15 (the lowest closing price since January), they'd have made an additional $4.8B by today. And the stock is still undervalued IMO.

You may see Apple as undervalued but the market sees Amazon as much more undervalued than Apple and to me, that's just crazy.  Such things make me question as to whether I understand anything at all about the stock market and company value.  Buffett said he wished he had bought Amazon and Google in the past, so I suppose the value is there, but I just can't see it.  As Buffett has said, he buys what he understands.  I believe I understand Apple and so far I have been right (lucky) for 14 years and counting.  Is Apple undervalued?  It sure is below the value of its peers although I can't explain why.  The fundamentals are there, but something else must be missing and I'm guessing it has to do with Apple's small market share percentage.  I don't see Apple's high-end business model changing, so Apple will most likely stay valued the way it is.

I'm really enjoying how Old Man Buffett is making all the millenial analysts look really stupid. Buffett may not know much about tech but he understands sound investing, at least from my point of view. It always puzzled me why analysts and investors were moaning and groaning about million unit iPhone shortfalls from quarter to quarter when you'd think they should be able to see further than that. Practically anything can hurt a quarter, even the weather, global unrest or flu epidemic. iPhone sales shortfalls do not indicate Apple's overall health by any means. Basing those sales on supply chain data makes numbers even less reliable. These analysts are really stupid and might as well wait for Apple's guidance.

It's so amusing how Buffett's firm was loading up on Apple shares while the gutless were tossing their Apple stock to the wind. I could understand if investors weren't buying Apple, but they should never have been selling on unsubstantiated rumors. Quarter-to-quarter iPhone sales don't scare me because I'm in Apple for the dividends and I'll get them even i the share price drops. I'm always somewhat surprised when the negative news comes out a couple of weeks before earnings and investors start getting antsy. It happens like clockwork so you'd think investors would realize something nefarious is going on. Well, it just goes to show how scared investors really don't think straight if they believe their wealth is at risk. Buffett and crew obviously can relax and see through the temporary chaos.

I'm really glad a conservative investor like Buffet is backing Apple.  His buys are based on company fundamentals.  Maybe more investors will follow his lead or at least stop being such man-pussies and see that Apple could be much more than just the iPhone company. Honestly, small retail investors need to get a grip on reality. The FANG stocks are not the entire stock market. There are other ways to make money without having to rely on double-digit revenue growth. That can't be depended on from any company to last forever. Just beware of any analyst telling investors to drop Apple to get X stock. That's just criminal advice.

I'm quite surprised with Apple's post-earnings share gains. I thought if I were very lucky, Apple's share price might reach around $170 or so but this much is just incredible. I was ready to accept the increased dividends and not concern myself with anything else. I figured Wall Street was out to get Apple and that the share price wasn't going to increase. Wall Street is so hung up on those FANG stocks that I thought Apple would be hung out to dry. I'm in no hurry to see Apple reach a $1T market cap, especially if it can't hold it. Besides, dividends mean more to me than anything right now because I'm not ready to sell any of my Apple stock.

 What would really put my mind at ease is if Apple would be able to stop that constant doom and gloom chatter that Wall Street throws at Apple. Warren Buffet could really help a lot if he can convince other big investors that Apple is a solid company worth buying.  It's really amazing how such an old guy who doesn't even use Apple products understands the company better than most young investors do.  I suppose he's just a fundamental investor who takes the long-term approach.  Don't ignore a company because it doesn't have double-digit revenue growth.  Don't judge a company by quarter-to-quarter results.

I'm glad earnings turned out as well as it did and I hope Wall Street doesn't forget when the next quarter's results are ready to come out.  However, I'm sure the nastiness will happen again.  Doesn't it always.