Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Apr 1, 2015 2:48:38 GMT -8
Good morning everyone. Today is April Fools Day. All day. Well AAPL is GREEN this morning, trading at 124.65 +0.22 (0.18%) as of 6:19AM. At this early hour the major US indices are mixed, near even. It would be nice to recover of yesterdays loss... and then some. In the news: AppleInsider has two interesting pieces this morning: Apple and IBM unveil 8 new MobileFirst iOS apps, new healthcare and industrial products categories, Apple announces Chinese iPhone and iPad trade-in program. Cult of Mac opines Why withholding Apple Watch from U.K.’s biggest mobile retailer is a brilliant move. *** On Indiana Gate... I posted the original Indiana link in Monday's thread opening. A couple of members contacted me privately suggesting this was unwise as it might encourage to political discussions on the thread. My logic was since this was Tim Cook, and implicitly Apple, taking a public position which could have consequences for the stock, it seemed relevant to this thread to this limited degree. We made it through Monday with no debate on the position. Last night there was much discussion on the subject. Most of it seemed relatively subdued. Indeed the people who felt slighted seemed to be responding to something that wasn't there. Kudos. The question for all of you is should all political discussion be avoided on the board, even when Apple or Apple Management is taking a strong public position or can such position be noted without digressing into a debate of the pros or cons of the position? That is can we focus on the actions of the company? *** Have a great day. Let's make money.
|
|
|
Post by CdnPhoto on Apr 1, 2015 2:51:26 GMT -8
Happy 39th Birthday Apple!
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Apr 1, 2015 4:04:14 GMT -8
AAPL added to Citi Focus List this morning.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Apr 1, 2015 5:00:11 GMT -8
129 or bust
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Apr 1, 2015 5:16:43 GMT -8
Green is much nicer than red.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Apr 1, 2015 5:26:12 GMT -8
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster has high hopes for Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), as the countdown is on for the Apple Watch release date, which has officially been set for April 24 in select countries. With the start of Apple Watch availability approaching, the analyst believes that investors may begin to focus on opening weekend metrics. Munster noted, "Apple may or may not release opening weekend sales figures for the Watch given that they are not reporting Watch numbers in quarterly results; however, we believe they may, at the least, give a sense for Watch sales when Apple reports earnings the following week. We expect Apple could generate 300k pre-orders in the first 24 hours and 1 million units in the first weekend. We also note that we expect 2.3 million units of the Watch in the Jun-15 quarter."Expects 1 Million Watches Sold Opening Weekend The analyst believes the company could reach 1 million Watches sold opening weekend (including pre-orders). 1 million total Watch units in opening weekend would imply an attach rate of less than 1% of total iPhone users (close to half a percent), according to Munster. He stated, "We believe given interest in the product and our prior survey work, a sub 1% attach rate in the opening weekend is realistic. One important dynamic for the Watch vs the iPhone opening weekend is that iPhone launches can benefit from channel fill as Apple sends units to channel partners (likely minimal for iPhone 6/6+ launch, but a factor in the iPhone 5S launch). The Watch will likely not benefit from channel fill given the limited distribution at launch.www.smarteranalyst.com/2015/04/01/apple-reach-1-million-watches-sold-opening-weekend-piper-jaffray/
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Apr 1, 2015 5:34:09 GMT -8
Well, like it or not Tim seems to be "doubling down" on Apples celebration of diversity. They're re-introducing the multi-color logo as a reflection of this. I'll respond in part to Since84's question on politics by saying I've always thought debate was a healthy (albeit sometimes uncomfortable) way to run a company and/or just about anything else. Were I among the board members @ Apple I would have been vigorously debating Tim's reintroduction of the old logo. Not because I'm against diversity...,I'm against fugly. You can read all about it here.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Apr 1, 2015 5:37:52 GMT -8
Well, like it or not Tim seems to be "doubling down" on Apples celebration of diversity. They're re-introducing the multi-color logo as a reflection of this. I'll respond in part to Since84's question on politics by saying I've always thought debate was a healthy (albeit sometimes uncomfortable) way to run a company and/or just about anything else. Were I among the board members @ Apple I would have been vigorously debating Tim's reintroduction of the old logo. Not because I'm against diversity...,I'm against fugly. You can read all about it here.And the date would be?
|
|
|
Post by CdnPhoto on Apr 1, 2015 5:38:01 GMT -8
Well, like it or not Tim seems to be "doubling down" on Apples celebration of diversity. They're re-introducing the multi-color logo as a reflection of this. I'll respond in part to Since84's question on politics by saying I've always thought debate was a healthy (albeit sometimes uncomfortable) way to run a company and/or just about anything else. Were I among the board members @ Apple I would have been vigorously debating Tim's reintroduction of the old logo. Not because I'm against diversity...,I'm against fugly. You can read all about it here.Um, consider the source of the article and today's date.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Apr 1, 2015 5:40:52 GMT -8
Once again. AAPLOL
|
|
|
Post by appleaddict on Apr 1, 2015 5:41:29 GMT -8
Well, like it or not Tim seems to be "doubling down" on Apples celebration of diversity. They're re-introducing the multi-color logo as a reflection of this. I'll respond in part to Since84's question on politics by saying I've always thought debate was a healthy (albeit sometimes uncomfortable) way to run a company and/or just about anything else. Were I among the board members @ Apple I would have been vigorously debating Tim's reintroduction of the old logo. Not because I'm against diversity...,I'm against fugly. You can read all about it here. Click the Press Contact link at the bottom of the article.
|
|
|
Post by mace on Apr 1, 2015 6:17:28 GMT -8
LoD which could mark wave E of the triangle overshot the lower line of the triangle... pretty normal... now we have to see whether AAPL re-bounces above $126.49.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Apr 1, 2015 6:18:10 GMT -8
Well, like it or not Tim seems to be "doubling down" on Apples celebration of diversity. They're re-introducing the multi-color logo as a reflection of this. I'll respond in part to Since84's question on politics by saying I've always thought debate was a healthy (albeit sometimes uncomfortable) way to run a company and/or just about anything else. Were I among the board members @ Apple I would have been vigorously debating Tim's reintroduction of the old logo. Not because I'm against diversity...,I'm against fugly. You can read all about it here.Ehh, I don't find the old logo fugly, but whatevs - some will. For those upset by Tim's newfound vocality in support of gay & human rights I offer this: The world we live in is so far from perfect in so many ways. If a for-profit US corporation chooses to go beyond the norm, to break out of the traditional role of only making $ while keeping its collective head down, to advocate for change in fundamental ways that try to improve our societies and our planet, then who am I to object to that? Is it beyond Tim's role as a CEO to be outspoken in this way? Yes. Is it inappropriate? Maybe. Is it wrong? No, it's not. His motives are pure, his beliefs should be universal - equality and ecology. Tim's efforts to make Apple greener and an advocate for human rights is commendable on a basic level. If more corporations spoke out for good causes it might actually effect change. Being forthright in one's beliefs is honest and real; it's not business as usual and that's probably a good thing. If one half of one percent of Apple's customers choose not to buy an iPhone because TC is gay, proud and vocal, then so be it. I'm proud to be a shareholder... OTOH, I will be upset if he uses his soapbox every week, but imo so far so good. Overall, I think he's helping Apple gain respect in the world more than he's hurting it by alienating dissenters.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Apr 1, 2015 6:21:09 GMT -8
for Phoebes:
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Apr 1, 2015 6:25:38 GMT -8
In reference to the ongoing conversation (one of several) about corporate buybacks stopping a few weeks prior earnings announcements. I called an old buddy to get the specifics and although folks look to the 10b5-1 and the 10b-18 Rules, the truth is that there is nothing specifically that completely prevents them from being out there buying. Almost all, if not all, companies do cease during the quiet period so as not to give the impression that they were buying stock at a time which may be viewed as having had some huge advantage of undisclosed information leading up to earnings of their public company. The point is that it is not forbidden but just about all companies abide by it. Hope this clarifies a bit.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Apr 1, 2015 6:26:02 GMT -8
The point Tim is missing is diversity on the other side. He should express some concern for the right of religious people to feel OK.
But my more important point is that he speaks for Apple when he speaks publicly, and I think that is a mistake for shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Apr 1, 2015 6:28:56 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Apr 1, 2015 7:00:08 GMT -8
The point Tim is missing is diversity on the other side. He should express some concern for the right of religious people to feel OK. But my more important point is that he speaks for Apple when he speaks publicly, and I think that is a mistake for shareholders. In America, we should not celebrate "the freedom to discriminate," which is what the Indiana law encourages (even Governor Pence seems to realize this, based upon his backtracking). Tim Cook has every right to comment on the issues of our time, since he is a private citizen as well as a CEO. If you believe that his pronouncements will harm the stock, you are free to sell before any backlash occurs. My guess is that even for people who are religious, the idea of making money trumps ideological purity, and they will remain in the stock. For younger investors, the idea of activist CEOs is probably a positive, since the young are statistically far more accepting of homosexuality.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Apr 1, 2015 7:19:38 GMT -8
"...But my more important point is that he speaks for Apple when he speaks publicly, and I think that is a mistake for shareholders." I respect yr opinion. Please explain why you think it is a mistake for shareholders in this case. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Apr 1, 2015 7:32:41 GMT -8
Note, one of my very best friends 30 years ago was gay. Also, I am not a religious person.
I think Tim's coming out was admirable and I respected him even more for it.
I just think this is a political issue. (Religious people sometime feel threatened too, as do gays).
So why does Apple need to enter the arena here. The whole issue is overblown.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Apr 1, 2015 7:39:23 GMT -8
"...But my more important point is that he speaks for Apple when he speaks publicly, and I think that is a mistake for shareholders." I respect yr opinion. Please explain why you think it is a mistake for shareholders in this case. Thanks. In an earlier era, even the suspicion of Tim Cook's sexuality (a personal matter) would have precluded him from consideration to fill the corporate position he holds today. We would all be worse off had that occurred. I suspect Tim thinks about that perodically when he notes a crossroad in public thought
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Apr 1, 2015 7:44:05 GMT -8
AAPL trying to fight back here a bit.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Apr 1, 2015 7:44:50 GMT -8
Arkansas' legislature just passed a bill similar to Indiana's, and Walmart–of all corporations–is urging the governor to veto it. The times they are a-changin'.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Apr 1, 2015 8:19:57 GMT -8
Arkansas' legislature just passed a bill similar to Indiana's, and Walmart–of all corporations–is urging the governor to veto it. The times they are a-changin'. Well, regardless of how we feel about Tim's outspokenness, it is what it is. We need to get used to it. I mean the guy came out to the world. This is a new company. Steve was secretive, private and stock neutral. Tim is private, stock positive and way outspoken - with the board's blessing apparently. We wanted more insights into the company… well, welcome to Apple 3.0, taking corporate activism in a new direction?
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Apr 1, 2015 9:08:41 GMT -8
Earnings release Monday April 27th. WOW! IT COULD HAVE BEEN 4/21 is there going to be an event that day? 4/27 MONDAY will include the first weekend of WATCH sales in the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by pauls on Apr 1, 2015 9:25:19 GMT -8
I respect yr opinion. Please explain why you think it is a mistake for shareholders in this case. Thanks. In an earlier era, even the suspicion of Tim Cook's sexuality (a personal matter) would have precluded him from consideration to fill the corporate position he holds today. We would all be worse off had that occurred. I suspect Tim thinks about that perodically when he notes a crossroad in public thought Apple as a brand is all about the future. TC shining a light on equal rights, renewable energy, working conditions around the world are all to the good, if you take a long term view, imo. This company can afford to do things others can't, including taking steps today that will be seen with favor tomorrow (and today). I would add privacy to the list as well. Apple should be ahead of the curve on bettering the human condition, it's good for the brand.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Apr 1, 2015 9:26:22 GMT -8
I just think this is a political issue. (Religious people sometime feel threatened too, as do gays). This is true. That's why the best policy is to forbid a business open to the public from denying service to a person based on their religion or their sexual orientation or their gender or marital status, etc. Obviously, religious institutions would have some exclusions (for example, the law wouldn't force Catholic churches to accept women or married men as priests). It's definitely a political issue of sorts. A very thorny one in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Apr 1, 2015 10:55:44 GMT -8
Note, one of my very best friends 30 years ago was gay. Also, I am not a religious person. I think Tim's coming out was admirable and I respected him even more for it. I just think this is a political issue. (Religious people sometime feel threatened too, as do gays). So why does Apple need to enter the arena here. The whole issue is overblown. It's only overblown if you're not affected by it. Might you feel differently if your best friend was murdered for being gay? Because stuff like that still happens. Frankly, Apple has far more pull on public perception than the vast majority of politicians, so I think they're doing the right thing in the long term.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Apr 1, 2015 11:11:31 GMT -8
come on AAPL. You know you want to be green......
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Apr 1, 2015 11:56:06 GMT -8
Note, one of my very best friends 30 years ago was gay. Also, I am not a religious person. I think Tim's coming out was admirable and I respected him even more for it. I just think this is a political issue. (Religious people sometime feel threatened too, as do gays). So why does Apple need to enter the arena here. The whole issue is overblown. A very important distinction among the very unnuanced shrieking by the left in their panty-wetting over this (especially considering their presidential candidate in 2008 and 2012 was against gay marriage until about only like 10 minutes ago, and considering that Bill Clinton signed the DOMA and RFRA, the latter being introduced by the next Democrat Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer). For the record, Tim did write his op-ed on behalf of Apple, which I find particularly inappropriate for a publicly-held corporation in a pluralistic democracy (compare: the backlash against the privately-held Hobby Lobby and its stand against paying for employees' abortifacient drugs). From The LA Times: So yeah, as a stockholder/owner of Apple since Tim was an anonymous exec at Compaq, he does not speak for me if he thinks Christian bakers and florists should be sued out of business or prosecuted if they don't participate in gay weddings. I really hope someone will ask him that particular question in a future interview. And whether being against that makes someone a hateful intolerant bigot. I like Tim. I really do. I suspect he might be the best living CEO on earth, at least for Apple post-Jobs (let's see how the new product releases go first before we give him a 10/10). I'd love to meet Tim and talk his ears off about Apple and consumer tech for hours. I have zero issues with him being gay. I hate bullying, and I don't think that someone should hide who they are (although I do believe strongly in freedom of association, and think military preparedness and unit cohesion are important policies as well). However, UNLIKE racial discrimination, which segregates and stigmatizes the entire person, this debate is generally about a specific CEREMONY. I have yet to hear about a baker or a florist say they wouldn't sell regular cakes to gays. Just as they wouldn't make a cake for two 11-year-olds trying to get married, or a hetero couple who wanted a "living in sin cake" made for their lifestyle, they don't want to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs. That doesn't mean they "hate" 11-year-olds. Disagreeing with a lifestyle or ceremony on religious grounds IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO discriminating on the person himself for anything and everything because of his skin color. The civil rights struggle for blacks is not analogous for many additional reasons. If anything, a legal environment that uses the force of government to persecute Christians for adhering to their beliefs is more analogous to Jim Crow (and unconstitutional and violative of the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Newsflash: There is serious disagreement about what constitutes marriage, and why society should condone and support it; from a secular policy perspective, government support of marriage was originally intended to reduce the number of children of single mothers from growing up in poverty. But now it is official government policy to subsidize that behavior, so that ship has sailed. But until about 10 minutes ago, many Democrats, like the two presidents I mentioned above, felt that marriage was only between a man and a woman, and that civil partnership rights could be extended to gay couples in other ways (Dick Cheney supported gay marriage long before President "Profile in Courage" Obama did after he was term-limited in 2012). But suddenly, only evil hateful bigots can possibly see the other side of this debate? Color me suspicious that this recent, 180° sea-change by certain prominent Democrats isn't more of a cynical ploy to use gay marriage as a political blunt instrument, rather than a heartfelt Damascus conversion by politicians of conscience. If anything, the bullying and intolerance I see is against Christians, whose businesses and even states the left wants to boycott ENTIRELY, not merely their wedding cakes and flowers. I'd also point out that one Libertarian perspective holds that government should get out of the marriage business entirely, as affording special benefits to married couples is de facto discrimination on single people, not to mention, would-be polygamists. Which is why the term "marriage equality" is an oxymoron. Recognition of marriage itself treats people differently. For the record, I am not married, a baker, a florist, or a practicing Christian. If I were a baker, I'd probably make gay wedding cakes. But being a Libertarian means that you tolerate VIEWS YOU DISAGREE WITH. Anything else is not "tolerance," it's agreement. Nobody needs tolerance of things you actually agree with. But back to Tim. A good article in National Review points out that Thinking Different requires that Apple actually allow people to do so. One thing I suspect is that Tim did vet his op-ed past corporate counsel. Note this part of his statement: Well then, I guess we have Title VII compliance at Apple, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. *** Final thought: You all should be against Tim taking these public political stands on behalf of Apple, if only because it puts the topics into play on AFB, when instead, we should be discussing stock price, Watch, FA, options, earnings, and chicken entrails like good AAPL investors. Cheers to the AAPL longs. Cheers to Apple. Cheers to Tim. And cheers to being able to Think Different[ly] in America.
|
|