thompr

Metriacanthosaurus said:

Please tell there is some kind of legitimate medical use for constantly monitoring blood alcohol level, and this is not just the ideal strap for someone who desperately needs a different lifestyle than a daily flirting with drinking and driving.

People's lifestyles involve varying amounts of drinking, and I try not to judge.  What if the only use for this strap was for daily drinkers who are considering whether they should drive or call Uber? 

I'm OK with that.

larrya said:

"The card was excised because of the "path forward" with more generic physical card readers, or the growing implementation of wireless transfer.

Schiller says that the 3.5mm headphone jack was retained for professionals with audio gear that do not have wireless solutions, and still need the jack for macOS."

So, the "professional" solution to mass storage is wireless, but professionals don't have access to BT headphones. It's getting deep in the spin room. 

Many sound "professionals" use the 3.5mm sound jack for more things than just headphones.  Many of these things do not have wireless versions.

Thompson

sog35 said:

They just need a CEO who can defend the company and spew some BS vision about its future.

Look at companies like Amazon, Google, Tesla, ect. They are all in much worse shape than Apple, and far riskier. Yet their stock is valued at 200%-1000% higher than Apple. Its because their CEO knows how to spew BS and spin. Their CEO's also know how to chew out the media and Wall Street. Apple desperately needs a CEO who is NOT afraid of ruffling feathers and getting DIRTY.

One example is Ming Kuo (the well connected 'insider') the guy in the far east spewing crap about Apple. If Apple had a crafty CEO, Ming would be silent. A crafty CEO would send a dozen guys to Ming's office and home. You know the rest. Nothing illegal. But very persuasive. That's just one example.

Instead of spending $200 billion on buying back stock, Apple should have hired an entire PR arm, who's sole purpose is to aggressively combat the FUD and lies spread by the media. That would cost way less than $200 billion and the stock would be MUCH HIGHER if Apple aggressively fought back, even pushing legal action against these people.

One big difference between Apple and Amazon or Google is that Apple makes the majority of its $$$ off of consumer electronics products, and a lot of people don't understand the difference between Apple devices and other here-today-gone-tomorrow devices.  These other people could be wrong, but it does't matter.  As long as there are enough investors fearing that Apple can quickly fall from its lofty perch, that sentiment will be a damper on the stock.  And no PR spins or BS vision from any CEO could defeat that.

With regard to Tesla, they have a relatively small market cap and relatively high headroom for growth, so BS has a chance of succeeding.  Apple enjoys neither of those qualities.

In short, I don't subscribe to your notion that Tim Cook - or any other person, no matter how charismatic and glib - could talk their way into a higher multiple for AAPL.  Maybe over short intervals, yes, but the stock is going to continue to get hammered down in PE multiple every time it seems like growth is failing.

sog35 said:

I hope Tim takes the Job.

IMO, Tim is a better fit for public service or charity organization.

He just doesn't have the mean streak to be a successful CEO in times of crisis.

The stock price tells the whole story.

Nothing personal against Tim. He seems to be a VERY NICE GENUINE person. And that's a problem when you are a CEO of a company competing against the sharks at Google, Samsung, Microsoft, Wall Street Journal, Verge, Bloomburg, NY Times, Digi Times, Yahoo Finance, CNBC, Amazon, Tesla, ect.  You need a CEO who will take of the kitty gloves and kick azz.  You need a CEO who is not afraid of confrontation and willing to embarass anyone who spews lies about Apple.

The stock price is up by more than 2x since Steve Jobs died, and a lot more than that since Tim Cook began playing the CEO role with Steve out on medical leave (or whatever they called it).  That's a good, solid ROI for a company that is this large.  If you are hoping for another quick 3-bagger, then you are looking at the wrong company... and no CEO would do any better at attaining those expectations, not even Steve.  

Looking at AAPL's chart in Yahoo over the entirety of its lifetime, a general linear trend has existed for about a decade, allowing for three temporary peaks and three temporary valleys along the way  (two of which were on Steve's watch).  The bottom line is that if you stop looking at things with such a narrow timeline (i.e. don't be so impatient and/or focused on the most recent valley) you will see that Tim has done just fine by the stock.

But the more important point is this:  Even if offered, Tim would NEVER take that job.  I believe that (1) he is far too smart to take on that powerless and thankless role, and (2) he is being honest when he says he loves what he is doing at Apple.

robin huber said:

And yet, Samsung lickspittle journalists insist Apple will not profit from their disaster. 

Despite exploding smartphones, customers are likely to stick with Samsung
http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-samsung-competitors-20161010-snap-story.html

Interesting.  In that article you provided a link for, we have quotes from "analysts" or "industry experts" who give their opinions.  Yet in the very article we are replying to, we have some quantitative results on how many people returned their Note 7's to some AT&T stores after the time at which AT&T started allowing other phones to be switched to (82) and what number of those switched to iPhone (72).  That's 72 out of 82 phones that were eligible for switching.

Anecdotal, yes, but this evidence sure beats the heck out of unnamed experts trotting out their opinions.