gmgravytrain

SpamSandwich said:

adm1 said:

I'm shocked amazon's prime subscriber base is only just hitting 100m, I assumed it was far higher given it offers much more than just films and tv series. Incidentally, I see Netflix "only" has 125m subscribers worldwide too, maybe I was assuming more people had these services given the popularity among people I know/work with/speak to/friends & family etc. etc. and the amount of countries they are available in.

And Netflix is spending billions of dollars a year on original content... BILLIONS!

Netflix is surely spending billions of dollars on content and not every series or movie is a hit, but it doesn't matter to Wall Street. All Wall Street is concerned with for Netflix is subscriber growth and as long as Netflix has that the stock will remain highly valued. I don't know what Apple needs to get even a P/E of 20. Sell tens of millions of more iPhones every quarter? Another thing with Netflix is that subscribers can quit at any time. It's not even as though they're tied in for longer than a month.

Where's this huge moat for Netflix that Wall Street thinks can't be breached by any other video streaming company? I have never bothered to take Netflix trial offer over the years because I've no reason to do so. I have an Amazon Prime subscription and it offers plenty of video options for me. There's only so much I can watch on a daily basis and I simply don't need any more, especially during the summer months. Apple is the only company that seems to remain on the doomed list while all the FANG stocks are said to have unlimited growth potential. Why isn't Apple able to do anything about their situation considering they have so much more money to spend than rivals? Bezos makes an announcement and Amazon stock soars. That never happens to Apple. Only doom and gloom reports for Apple to make the stock sink.  Why can't Apple get a video streaming service if there's that much low-hanging fruit for Netflix's UNLIMITED growth?  It's so annoying Apple can't take advantage of that.

wood1208 said:

Earlier Critics,gloom and doom,ant-apple camp said iPhone X a failure, Now change to "conspiracy" .

Nearly every Apple product is called a failure because they usually don't capture high enough market share percentage which is supposedly the only standard to measure success. It's possible Apple products would again require long lines at Apple stores to be said to be successful. It's hard to say because critics set different standards for Apple than for other companies. If car companies were judged as Apple were, only Toyota would have successful products and companies like Ferrari, Mercedes or Porsche would only have failed products. Any low-volume product would immediately be considered a failure.

That's fairly decent profits but yet the iPhone X is considered a "failed" product. I suppose anything can be considered a failure if it doesn't meet a particular person's standards. Apparently, the only measure for Wall Street is when a product exceeds a certain amount of market share percentage whether or not the product is profitable or not. If market share percentage is the only measure of success for a product, then no Apple product will ever be considered "successful." Generally speaking, Apple's entire business is not considered a successful business as far as Wall Street is concerned because of such low growth potential and Apple doesn't seem to dominate any particular market. However, Apple's cash flow is good and profits are relatively high but is still considered a doomed business due to certain set standards of what is considered a successful business.

Meanwhile, the entire Windows PC world is hyped up about the new 6-core Intel i9 on their laptops with GTX1080M GPUs which are basically skinny, yet powerful, gaming machines. Your move, Apple. Errr. I fear Apple has no answer for that. A-series SoCs are nice but not on all Apple computers. Some of us desktop people want a great deal more.

I don't quite understand. The stock market is valuing Spotify at around $30B. Apple has about half the number of paid subscribers that Spotify has. So, are they implying that AppleMusic could be valued at around $15B. I have never heard anyone say AppleMusic is worth that much (Even $10B-15B). I thought it was basically a break-even sort of business. Another thing that puzzles me is I had always heard Spotify was struggling to make profits yet suddenly Spotify is worth so much to Wall Street.

I really don't grasp how Spotify is now some music streaming powerhouse. If that's the case, then why didn't Spotify IPO much sooner. Again, it must be one of these dominant market share stocks that Wall Street loves so much. High market share and little profits equates to big investor love.  I'm sure it's been said quite often that music streaming businesses are not anything to be excited about in terms of profits.  Pandora used to be around $35 a share and now it's about $5 a share.

Don't think I want Spotify to fail or anything like that. I think it's a quite decent streaming music platform and users should definitely have a choice of platforms. I just don't understand this sudden high value Wall Street is placing on Spotify and all this sudden growth potential. What changed positively for Spotify over the past years? Does this article define a powerhouse company worth $30B? I don't see it. I think all those ad-supported subscribers are a drag on the company.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/spotify-makes-internet-music-make-money.asp?rp=y&partner=YahooSA&yptr=yahoo