sacto joe

tzeshan said:

What is guidance for this quarter and the year?

As for several quarters now, Apple has not given any guidance. Too many unknowns. Personally, I wouldn't mind if they never gave guidance again.

fastasleep said:

neruda said:

SpamSandwich said:

Stonks to the moon incoming.

Apple stock at $144/share is undervalued.  It Apple stock had the same PE as Tesla its stock would be north of $350/share. 

Lol even Musk says Tesla is massively overvalued right now. 

Bad math, neruda. AAPL has a P/E after today of about 38. TSLA has a P/E of 1,642. At that P/E, Apple would have a price of (1,642/38x~140=) ~$6,049/share....

As an AAPL investor, may I say, neruda, from your lips to the Maker's ear....

Two different quotes from two different sections:

 “Research undertaken by Professor Tim Cooper has found that a product’s lifetime should, in most cases, be extended for as long as possible since roughly speaking, doubling a lifespan will halve the product’s environmental impact.189 190 Green Alliance has put some figures on specific electronic products that show how lengthening a lifespan can save carbon, energy and water consumption.191 According to a European Environmental Bureau (EEB) study (2019), extending the lifetime of all washing machines, smartphones, laptops and vacuum cleaners in the EU by one year would lead to annual savings of around four million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2030, which is equivalent to taking over two million cars off the roads for a year.”

 “Contributors to our inquiry have argued that making repair of electrical and electronic products easier is vital to reaching a circular economy and is intrinsically linked to making more durable products. For example, the Restart Project has estimated that over 1,000 community repair events logged in its online system have saved an estimated 17,864kg of electronic waste and an estimated 280,894kg CO2 emissions.”

 It could be argued, and I so argue, that these two attributes have become mutually exclusive. Apple has made its products last far longer than average, but in doing so it made "repairing" them more difficult. Was ANY attempt to weigh the net environmental benefit vs environmental cost made? Also, while I admittedly didn't do an exhaustive study of this study, where is it quantitatively shown that Apple products and their approach are creating a more than an average contribution to the "tsunami"? (Crickets)

SpamSandwich said:

anantksundaram said:

Can't help but note the fact that Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, all with leadership that could fairly be described as being left-of-center, are being hoisted by questionable, possibly even even vacuous, charges brought by their own.

Ah, the irony...

I see these threats a little differently. I see them as evidence Apple has failed to spend sufficiently in their lobbying. Some view lobbying as bribery, but a business big enough to be considered a threat to Washington in power and influence must spend to protect their interests or submit to the will of stupid, power hungry politicians or competitors.

I agree, Spam. Lobbying is just directed advertising, which at its best educates. Of course, at its worst, it’s propaganda....

johnbear said:

30%? Come on Apple! 

Not enough? Too much? And it drops to 15% after a year.

They are allowed a profit after expenses, right? Especially considering the incredible job they’re doing?