Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 2:14:51 GMT -8
www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2014/01/133_149055.html"Samsung Electronics co-CEO and head of the firm’s mobile business, Shin Jong-kyun, said Thursday the firm is holding working-level discussions with Apple to find a breakthrough in their patent disputes. “Yes. Working-level discussions are now underway,†Shin said, confirming earlier reports by The Korea Times that the two firms have resumed “peace talks†to end their patent feud. Samsung earlier agreed with Apple to submit a joint settlement proposal before January 8 to the U.S. federal Judge Lucy H. Koh, who has presided over the patent cases since 2011. Shin said he will fly to the United States to participate in this year’s International Consumer Electronics Show (ICES), which kicks off next week in the U.S. desert city of Las Vegas. He, however, refused to confirm whether he will meet with Apple CEO Tim Cook to discuss the patent issue. “I will tell you more about that litigation issue in Las Vegas,†he said. Officials at the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (MSIP) and the Korea Fair Trade Commission said Samsung and Apple are “narrowing their differences†over royalty payments. “Samsung is currently in talks with Apple to sign a patent accord. The two companies are quite softening their positions on some contentious issues,†said an MSIP official. Still, the two companies are far apart on the value each places on their patent infringement claims. Samsung’s payment to Apple was fixed at $640 million. A new jury recently ordered Samsung to pay an additional $290 million to the iPhone maker, which is subject to the approval of the presiding judge."
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 2, 2014 3:31:44 GMT -8
In an attempt to make a name for himself, supposedly a young 30 year old analyst from Wells Fargo downgraded AAPL this morning to perform from outperform but kept his PT the same. You know Wells Fargo, right? It's the firm that Bloomberg exposed as one of the worst predictors of 2013. I'm attempting to get the text of his comments. We get upgrades and the stock pops +1 and yet on downgrades from a "nobody" we get -5. Happy New Year......geez!
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 2, 2014 3:52:01 GMT -8
Happy new year to all!!
Was expecting to see us up in pre-market with the start of the new year but instead I see we're down -5. Hoping it's the last of the pessimists being shaken off after which the institutions start buying again.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 2, 2014 3:56:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by qualitywte on Jan 2, 2014 5:28:35 GMT -8
Oh the power this young prognosticator must feel. He can affect the stock price of a giant corporation!
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 2, 2014 5:31:32 GMT -8
I'll take anything but endless range-bound trading until earnings.
|
|
|
Post by jmolloy on Jan 2, 2014 5:38:27 GMT -8
To summarize Peter Cohen's (@flargh) tweet yesterday:
Apple has done NOTHING in 2014! Sell!
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Jan 2, 2014 5:40:52 GMT -8
Buy the morning dip. It won't last long. IMO. This is just a times news release so folks who fucked around for the holidays can get back in.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 2, 2014 5:44:39 GMT -8
Buy the morning dip. It won't last long. IMO. This is just a times news release so folks who fucked around for the holidays can get back in. +1
|
|
|
Post by wildguess on Jan 2, 2014 6:05:29 GMT -8
This is why AAPL is down. Marketwatch runs a story on Google slashing price of phone.
Google Inc.'s Motorola unit dropped the price on its flagship smartphone Wednesday, continuing its assault on the high margins of its smartphone rivals.
In a blog post, the company said its Moto X with 16 gigabytes of memory would now cost $399 without a wireless contract for U.S. customers, down from $550. The company offered the Moto X for brief periods in December at $349, but the latest price drop isn't a temporary promotion.
At $399, the Moto X will be significantly cheaper than Samsung Electronics Co.'s flagship device, the Galaxy S4, which costs $600 at Verizon Wireless for a 16-gigabyte model without a wireless contract. The Galaxy is the most popular high-end smartphone that, like Motorola's devices, runs Google's Android operating system.
Apple Inc.'s iPhone 5S, running on its own operating system, costs $650 at Verizon for a 16-gigabyte model without a contract.
The price cut on the Moto X extends a strategy laid out by Motorola Chief Executive Dennis Woodside to undercut rivals. Motorola's lower-end Moto G phone, released in November, starts at $179 without a contract in the U.S., compared with $250 for a comparable Samsung device at Verizon.
Analysts say that low off-contract pricing is likely to have a bigger impact outside the U.S., where a larger share of smartphone users buy their phones directly, rather than by signing wireless contracts.
The Moto X is sold only in North and South America, and the new lower price is only available in the U.S. for now.
The $399 price means Motorola will be selling its device at significantly thinner profit margins than its rivals do. The cost of components inside a 16-gigabyte Moto X is roughly $200, according to TechInsights, and that is roughly the same as for Samsung's Galaxy S4. But the Galaxy now costs 50% more in the U.S.
More than two-thirds of Samsung's operating profit came from its sales of mobile devices in the third quarter. Motorola, by contrast, has recorded losses of roughly $2 billion since it was acquired by Google in 2012.
The price cut could be an effort to boost sales of the Moto X, which have been slow. Strategy Analytics estimates that Motorola sold roughly 500,000 in the third quarter, after the phone's August release. By comparison, Samsung said it sold more than 10 million Galaxy S4 phones within a month of its April release.
A Motorola spokesman declined to comment on the sales figures.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Jan 2, 2014 6:13:39 GMT -8
This is why AAPL is down. Marketwatch runs a story on Google slashing price of phone. Google Inc.'s Motorola unit dropped the price on its flagship smartphone Wednesday, continuing its assault on the high margins of its smartphone rivals. In a blog post, the company said its Moto X with 16 gigabytes of memory would now cost $399 without a wireless contract for U.S. customers, down from $550. The company offered the Moto X for brief periods in December at $349, but the latest price drop isn't a temporary promotion. At $399, the Moto X will be significantly cheaper than Samsung Electronics Co.'s flagship device, the Galaxy S4, which costs $600 at Verizon Wireless for a 16-gigabyte model without a wireless contract. The Galaxy is the most popular high-end smartphone that, like Motorola's devices, runs Google's Android operating system. Apple Inc.'s iPhone 5S, running on its own operating system, costs $650 at Verizon for a 16-gigabyte model without a contract. The price cut on the Moto X extends a strategy laid out by Motorola Chief Executive Dennis Woodside to undercut rivals. Motorola's lower-end Moto G phone, released in November, starts at $179 without a contract in the U.S., compared with $250 for a comparable Samsung device at Verizon. Analysts say that low off-contract pricing is likely to have a bigger impact outside the U.S., where a larger share of smartphone users buy their phones directly, rather than by signing wireless contracts. The Moto X is sold only in North and South America, and the new lower price is only available in the U.S. for now. The $399 price means Motorola will be selling its device at significantly thinner profit margins than its rivals do. The cost of components inside a 16-gigabyte Moto X is roughly $200, according to TechInsights, and that is roughly the same as for Samsung's Galaxy S4. But the Galaxy now costs 50% more in the U.S. More than two-thirds of Samsung's operating profit came from its sales of mobile devices in the third quarter. Motorola, by contrast, has recorded losses of roughly $2 billion since it was acquired by Google in 2012. The price cut could be an effort to boost sales of the Moto X, which have been slow. Strategy Analytics estimates that Motorola sold roughly 500,000 in the third quarter, after the phone's August release. By comparison, Samsung said it sold more than 10 million Galaxy S4 phones within a month of its April release. A Motorola spokesman declined to comment on the sales figures. Don't see this being the reason. Motorola has been down this flop path many times now. It is almost like Blackberry cutting the price of its devices. Hardly anyone cares.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Jan 2, 2014 6:19:37 GMT -8
If Google's Motorola and Amazon were to sell good smart phones essentially at cost, say $200, then use the phones as a loss-leader to sell advertising and content, then Apple's and Samsung's profit model could be in jeopardy. We'll see ...
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 2, 2014 7:32:26 GMT -8
Lol what bs. Fuck this stock.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 2, 2014 7:34:23 GMT -8
Adding short hedges below 552.32.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 8:24:12 GMT -8
It's possible some of the selling is being done by those who want an extra year to pay the tax.
Maynard Um....um, I doubt he has the cred to move AAPL's needle. He gives random sentence generators a bad name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 8:49:23 GMT -8
In an attempt to make a name for himself, supposedly a young 30 year old analyst from Wells Fargo downgraded AAPL this morning to perform from outperform but kept his PT the same. You know Wells Fargo, right? It's the firm that Bloomberg exposed as one of the worst predictors of 2013. I'm attempting to get the text of his comments. We get upgrades and the stock pops +1 and yet on downgrades from a "nobody" we get -5. Happy New Year......geez! >( I don't know about his analytical skills, but I know this, when WS believes Apple's Earnings and Guidance are going to be good AAPL does not trade like this. Trading volume remains unnaturally low, so the institutions have yet to join the fray. If trading continues as it has, next week, I will be very concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 8:51:30 GMT -8
Lol what bs. Fuck this stock. I'm guessing you aren't going to trade AAPL any longer. Good. Now take your insightful post and leave.
|
|
|
Post by blofeld on Jan 2, 2014 9:05:19 GMT -8
not sure the institutions make the market trend... seems more that they follow it. AAPL trades like a penny stock, with wild wings for no reason, but if it didn't, there would be no money to make, so beware what you wish for. if it was fully valued today, and every day before that, nobody could have seen big gains in their portfolio... In an attempt to make a name for himself, supposedly a young 30 year old analyst from Wells Fargo downgraded AAPL this morning to perform from outperform but kept his PT the same. You know Wells Fargo, right? It's the firm that Bloomberg exposed as one of the worst predictors of 2013. I'm attempting to get the text of his comments. We get upgrades and the stock pops +1 and yet on downgrades from a "nobody" we get -5. Happy New Year......geez! >( I don't know about his analytical skills, but I know this, when WS believes Apple's Earnings and Guidance are going to be good AAPL does not trade like this. Trading volume remains unnaturally low, so the institutions have yet to join the fray. If trading continues as it has, next week, I will be very concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:14:58 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:24:43 GMT -8
not sure the institutions make the market trend... seems more that they follow it. AAPL trades like a penny stock, with wild wings for no reason, but if it didn't, there would be no money to make, so beware what you wish for. if it was fully valued today, and every day before that, nobody could have seen big gains in their portfolio... If that were true, there'd be no reason to hire all those MBAs, take trips to Asia for supplier checks, crunch numbers, etc. Instead they could save a ton of money by not doing the above, and just read the AFB to find out what was going on. Riiiight.
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jan 2, 2014 9:28:14 GMT -8
Lol what bs. Fuck this stock. I'm guessing you aren't going to trade AAPL any longer. Good. Now take your insightful post and leave. +1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:30:32 GMT -8
As a mind exercise only, I cherry picked the slowest growth rate (by product) from the last three years results, and came up with the following Revenue estimate. Mind you this is the worst growth rates, by product, of the past three years, and does not include Docomo or China Mobile impact.
$51,400,000,000
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 2, 2014 9:35:18 GMT -8
As a mind exercise only, I cherry picked the slowest growth rate (by product) from the last three years results, and came up with the following Revenue estimate. Mind you this is the worst growth rates, by product, of the past three years, and does not include Docomo or China Mobile impact. $51,400,000,000 So, that i understand, you took the slowest quarterly growth rate for each product segment any time in the past three years, pasted that low rate on the revenue for the past quarter (september) and then came up with 51 billion at revenue for the December quarter? If so, that does seem like a worst case sceanario.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:35:34 GMT -8
As a mind exercise only, I cherry picked the slowest growth rate (by product) from the last three years results, and came up with the following Revenue estimate. Mind you this is the worst growth rates, by product, of the past three years, and does not include Docomo or China Mobile impact. $51,400,000,000 Is that for January or April earnings?
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Jan 2, 2014 9:43:31 GMT -8
As a mind exercise only, I cherry picked the slowest growth rate (by product) from the last three years results, and came up with the following Revenue estimate. Mind you this is the worst growth rates, by product, of the past three years, and does not include Docomo or China Mobile impact. $51,400,000,000 Is that for January or April earnings? It's for the whole year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:52:41 GMT -8
As a mind exercise only, I cherry picked the slowest growth rate (by product) from the last three years results, and came up with the following Revenue estimate. Mind you this is the worst growth rates, by product, of the past three years, and does not include Docomo or China Mobile impact. $51,400,000,000 So, that i understand, you took the slowest quarterly growth rate for each product segment any time in the past three years, pasted that low rate on the revenue for the past quarter (september) and then came up with 51 billion at revenue for the December quarter? If so, that does seem like a worst case sceanario..... Close. Your error is my fault. I failed to specify that the exercise was for FQ2. As for worst case scenario it would seem so. If this is what Apple is thinking for the March quarter, management will Guide $48.5 - $51.5 Billion. I'm sticking with my $50.0 - $53.0 Revenue Guidance. Either one will give Investor Sentiment a serious positive jolt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:53:56 GMT -8
Is that for January or April earnings? It's for the whole year. You can hold the door open for Mactradr.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jan 2, 2014 10:11:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 2, 2014 10:14:58 GMT -8
I've always respected Cramer's analyst team..they are very good. Cramer himself is a showman, but not to be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Jan 2, 2014 10:18:17 GMT -8
He was also on CNBC earlier today saying the same thing. Yes he's not too popular around here but he's been right on regarding AAPL as of late.
|
|