|
Post by terps530 on Jan 6, 2014 6:58:04 GMT -8
i kind of wish/hope cars are open and able to accept either form of OS, depending what you use. Having all my devices on iOS, I now would have to limit my next car options to one of the non-android cars it sounds like. it would be cool if you could pair with either/or.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 7:22:22 GMT -8
i kind of wish/hope cars are open and able to accept either form of OS, depending what you use. Having all my devices on iOS, I now would have to limit my next car options to one of the non-android cars it sounds like. it would be cool if you could pair with either/or. I have to think this news is more about the manufacturers being more open to all smartphones, not just iOS. Particularly among the luxury brands, their target demographic points to iOS users, not Android. Choice will very likely prevail. I can't imagine an either/or proposition here.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Jan 6, 2014 7:29:38 GMT -8
i kind of wish/hope cars are open and able to accept either form of OS, depending what you use. Having all my devices on iOS, I now would have to limit my next car options to one of the non-android cars it sounds like. it would be cool if you could pair with either/or. Since GM and Honda already have announced they are working with Apple, it would appear the choice of IOS or Android may be made at the time of purchase. My fear would be I choose IOS, but Google still downloads information no matter what. And yes my tinfoil hat is firmly in place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 7:35:05 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 6, 2014 7:47:48 GMT -8
AAPL fighting back........
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Jan 6, 2014 7:48:35 GMT -8
Just checking the quote for AAPL and there is a color I can't recognize ?? :-)
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Jan 6, 2014 7:51:49 GMT -8
Brilliant. Trade paid off.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jan 6, 2014 8:10:35 GMT -8
RDR would be very good here. Money.
|
|
|
Post by terps530 on Jan 6, 2014 8:16:05 GMT -8
good. Maybe it will get some major steam cause it's been bothering me. I was in a store and first saw the fire hdx and it's huge cover lens on the display as well. The viewable area of the display is so much smaller, and the ad does a good job at hiding that. Also the position of the thumb shows how much bigger the air is. It's like showing a 50" tv next to a 55" tv and being amazed that the 50" is cheaper. scams
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 9:05:49 GMT -8
No announcement of Q1 14 earnings yet. If it doesn't get calendared today, could the chances improve for a surprise?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 9:07:47 GMT -8
I notice he selectively ignores the 1 year growth rate...the chances of Apple growing EPS at 60% anymore are somewhere between slim and none. I noticed your failure to even read the caption: 3-5 Year Est. Growth Rate. 1 year is estimated at 10%. I guess estimates are just wild guesses that vary significantly...cause I look on Nasdaq.com for 5 year expected growth rates and Apple has the lowest of the 3. Amazon is at 28%, Google at 16% and Apple at 12%
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jan 6, 2014 9:10:50 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 9:14:20 GMT -8
I noticed your failure to even read the caption: 3-5 Year Est. Growth Rate. 1 year is estimated at 10%. I guess estimates are just wild guesses that vary significantly...cause I look on Nasdaq.com for 5 year expected growth rates and Apple has the lowest of the 3. Amazon is at 28%, Google at 16% and Apple at 12% You are comparing apples and oranges (Sales vs. EPS).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 9:17:08 GMT -8
I guess estimates are just wild guesses that vary significantly...cause I look on Nasdaq.com for 5 year expected growth rates and Apple has the lowest of the 3. Amazon is at 28%, Google at 16% and Apple at 12% You are comparing apples and oranges (Sales vs. EPS). Nope, I was using earnings growth of all 3 companies right from Nasdaq.com
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 9:30:00 GMT -8
You are comparing apples and oranges (Sales vs. EPS). Nope, I was using earnings growth of all 3 companies right from Nasdaq.com The Nasdaq data is laughable on this one. They can't even spell "Long Term" ("Long-Team" ) Further, look at Amazon. They think EPS growth will be 167% in Dec. '13, 234% in '14, 127% in '15 and 73% in '16. "Long-Team 5 Year" is reported 28% That makes zero sense.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 6, 2014 9:38:43 GMT -8
Citi’s Internet, Media and Telecommunications Conference; Live Audio Webcast Available featuring AT&T today, Sprint Tuesday. AT&T Inc. at Citi Internet Media & Telecommunications Conference Monday, January 6, 2014 12:45 p.m. PT Event Details Title AT&T Inc. at Citi Internet Media & Telecommunications Conference Date and Time Monday, January 6, 2014 12:45 p.m. PT Location Las Vegas, NV US www.veracast.com/webcasts/citigroup/imt2014/75103666834.cfmOVERLAND PARK, Kan.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Sprint (NYSE: S) Chief Executive Officer Dan Hesse will speak at Citi’s Internet, Media and Telecommunications Conference in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Jan. 7 at 3:45 p.m. ET. A live audio webcast of this session may be accessed at www.sprint.com/investors. A replay will be available shortly after the actual presentation time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 9:39:25 GMT -8
Nope, I was using earnings growth of all 3 companies right from Nasdaq.com The Nasdaq data is laughable on this one. They can't even spell "Long Term" ("Long-Team" ) Further, look at Amazon. They think EPS growth will be 167% in Dec. '13, 234% in '14, 127% in '15 and 73% in '16. "Long-Team 5 Year" is reported 28% That makes zero sense. Not really...Amazon only earning 20 cents per share last year, it doesn't take much to boost their EPS by a lot. Also, if you look at Yahoo's, Amazon shows next 5 years EPS growth rate of 35%, Google's at 16% and Apple's at 14%.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Jan 6, 2014 10:01:03 GMT -8
Nope, I was using earnings growth of all 3 companies right from Nasdaq.com The Nasdaq data is laughable on this one. They can't even spell "Long Term" ("Long-Team" ) Further, look at Amazon. They think EPS growth will be 167% in Dec. '13, 234% in '14, 127% in '15 and 73% in '16. "Long-Team 5 Year" is reported 28% That makes zero sense. CNBC labels it "Next 3-5 yrs EPS Growth Rate" when Yahoo Finance labels it "Past 5 Years (per annum)". Likewise for the GOOG and AMZN data. Looks like CNBC, presenting history as future estimates, has it wrong (what a surprise). references: data.cnbc.com/quotes/AAPL/tab/5finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=AAPL+Analyst+Estimates
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 6, 2014 10:01:42 GMT -8
Obviously today's "downgrade" was total horseshit. Every electronics company uses the same suppliers that Apple does. But this sort social engineering nonsense continues to rear its head, probably because the activists sense that Tim Cook is more of an open lefty and way more of an appeaser than Jobs. And appeasement is the problem here. The activists think that they now have a more responsive Apple to their grievances. Get this BS story, and Bloomberg's long, sympathetic column inches dedicated to it: Apple Facing Criticism About Diversity Changes BylawsSo tell me, lefttard activists, which white make exec should Apple fire to make room for a black LGBT exec? This is where I really miss Steve Jobs, who would tell these rabble rousers to go fuck themselves.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 6, 2014 10:06:44 GMT -8
I don't think it's a LGBT issue, considering Tim Cook is gay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 10:12:43 GMT -8
The Nasdaq data is laughable on this one. They can't even spell "Long Term" ("Long-Team" ) Further, look at Amazon. They think EPS growth will be 167% in Dec. '13, 234% in '14, 127% in '15 and 73% in '16. "Long-Team 5 Year" is reported 28% That makes zero sense. Not really...Amazon only earning 20 cents per share last year, it doesn't take much to boost their EPS by a lot. Also, if you look at Yahoo's, Amazon shows next 5 years EPS growth rate of 35%, Google's at 16% and Apple's at 14%. Yes, really. If they're guiding 28% for 5 years and the first four years average 150%, then the fifth year has to be a negative growth rate to produce 28%. Ok, I'm done -- good luck to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 10:13:46 GMT -8
Obviously today's "downgrade" was total horseshit. Every electronics company uses the same suppliers that Apple does. But this sort social engineering nonsense continues to rear its head, probably because the activists sense that Tim Cook is more of an open lefty and way more of an appeaser than Jobs. And appeasement is the problem here. The activists think that they now have a more responsive Apple to their grievances. Get this BS story, and Bloomberg's long, sympathetic column inches dedicated to it: Apple Facing Criticism About Diversity Changes BylawsSo tell me, lefttard activists, which white make exec should Apple fire to make room for a black LGBT exec? This is where I really miss Steve Jobs, who would tell these rabble rousers to go fuck themselves. So do you think it's OK that 70%- of Board seats go to White Males? Please don't try and tell me they're just selecting the best person for the job...and no, this isn't Apple specific, it's a problem with almost every company. Here's some information for you on the benefits of diversity... "This exclusionary behavior is also harmful to companies and their shareholders. To start with, having women on boards produces better outcomes. Research by analyst firm Catalyst shows that companies with the highest proportions of women board directors outperform those with the lowest proportions by 53%. They have a 42% higher return on sales and 66% higher return on invested capital. When it comes to entrepreneurship, the advantages of diversity become even clearer. Firms founded by women are more capital efficient than those founded by men. Women-led high-tech startups have lower failure rates. Venture-backed companies run by a woman have annual revenues 12% higher than those by men; and organizations that are the most inclusive of women in top management positions achieve a 35% higher return on equity and 34% higher total return to shareholders."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 10:14:18 GMT -8
The Nasdaq data is laughable on this one. They can't even spell "Long Term" ("Long-Team" ) Further, look at Amazon. They think EPS growth will be 167% in Dec. '13, 234% in '14, 127% in '15 and 73% in '16. "Long-Team 5 Year" is reported 28% That makes zero sense. CNBC labels it "Next 3-5 yrs EPS Growth Rate" when Yahoo Finance labels it "Past 5 Years (per annum)". Likewise for the GOOG and AMZN data. Looks like CNBC, presenting history as future estimates, has it wrong (what a surprise). references: data.cnbc.com/quotes/AAPL/tab/5finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=AAPL+Analyst+EstimatesYahoo has both past and future, if memory serves. The one year is 10% EPS growth rate, which is not unreasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 10:17:26 GMT -8
Not really...Amazon only earning 20 cents per share last year, it doesn't take much to boost their EPS by a lot. Also, if you look at Yahoo's, Amazon shows next 5 years EPS growth rate of 35%, Google's at 16% and Apple's at 14%. Yes, really. If they're guiding 28% for 5 years and the first four years average 150%, then the fifth year has to be a negative growth rate to produce 28%. Ok, I'm done -- good luck to you. Wow, you really get defensive when people question you. All I did was link to 2 different financial websites that listed 5 year expected EPS growth rates...I never said they were right and yours was wrong. Personally I don't think anyone has any idea what the 5 year growth rates for each company will be, but based on share price I think the big boys expect Amazon and Google to be higher than Apple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 10:58:34 GMT -8
No, just weary of your non-sequitars. You're right about one thing, the data is soft, but if you can't see that Nasdaq's numbers don't add up or make sense, then I'll leave it to someone else to reply. Again, good luck to you.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 6, 2014 11:09:56 GMT -8
Meanwhile, AAPL is up 12 bucks from the morning low on pretty good volume...I sense the big boys are back at their desks and AAPL is benefitting ....
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 6, 2014 11:09:57 GMT -8
Obviously today's "downgrade" was total horseshit. Every electronics company uses the same suppliers that Apple does. But this sort social engineering nonsense continues to rear its head, probably because the activists sense that Tim Cook is more of an open lefty and way more of an appeaser than Jobs. And appeasement is the problem here. The activists think that they now have a more responsive Apple to their grievances. Get this BS story, and Bloomberg's long, sympathetic column inches dedicated to it: Apple Facing Criticism About Diversity Changes BylawsSo tell me, lefttard activists, which white make exec should Apple fire to make room for a black LGBT exec? This is where I really miss Steve Jobs, who would tell these rabble rousers to go fuck themselves. So do you think it's OK that 70%- of Board seats go to White Males? Please don't try and tell me they're just selecting the best person for the job...and no, this isn't Apple specific, it's a problem with almost every company. Here's some information for you on the benefits of diversity... "This exclusionary behavior is also harmful to companies and their shareholders. To start with, having women on boards produces better outcomes. Research by analyst firm Catalyst shows that companies with the highest proportions of women board directors outperform those with the lowest proportions by 53%. They have a 42% higher return on sales and 66% higher return on invested capital. When it comes to entrepreneurship, the advantages of diversity become even clearer. Firms founded by women are more capital efficient than those founded by men. Women-led high-tech startups have lower failure rates. Venture-backed companies run by a woman have annual revenues 12% higher than those by men; and organizations that are the most inclusive of women in top management positions achieve a 35% higher return on equity and 34% higher total return to shareholders." LOL, you must be kidding with that correlation bullshit. Merely by having vaginas in their boardrooms, companies are so enriched they make 66% higher returns! What a laugh in so many ways, it isn't even worth discussing all the methodological errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 11:10:03 GMT -8
No, just weary of your non-sequitars. You're right about one thing, the data is soft, but if you can't see that Nasdaq's numbers don't add up or make sense, then I'll leave it to someone else to reply. Again, good luck to you. I'd hate to use CNBC's data as fact, they're pretty low on the reliability pole if you ask me...I just checked Thompson Reuters as well and Apple has the lowest expected growth of the 3 companies there as well. I just think if Apple 2.0 is going to use charts, that they probably shouldn't use 5 year expected growth rates because the numbers vary so much from site to site. It doesn't help their argument IMHO if they just cherry pick the best guess. Why not ask Brian White or Gene Munster for Price Targets for the 3 firms if you're not going to care about bias. But I guess if the site is Apple 2.0, you probably don't care about a bias.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 11:11:22 GMT -8
So do you think it's OK that 70%- of Board seats go to White Males? Please don't try and tell me they're just selecting the best person for the job...and no, this isn't Apple specific, it's a problem with almost every company. Here's some information for you on the benefits of diversity... "This exclusionary behavior is also harmful to companies and their shareholders. To start with, having women on boards produces better outcomes. Research by analyst firm Catalyst shows that companies with the highest proportions of women board directors outperform those with the lowest proportions by 53%. They have a 42% higher return on sales and 66% higher return on invested capital. When it comes to entrepreneurship, the advantages of diversity become even clearer. Firms founded by women are more capital efficient than those founded by men. Women-led high-tech startups have lower failure rates. Venture-backed companies run by a woman have annual revenues 12% higher than those by men; and organizations that are the most inclusive of women in top management positions achieve a 35% higher return on equity and 34% higher total return to shareholders." LOL, you must be kidding with that correlation bullshit. Merely by having vaginas in their boardrooms, companies are so enriched they make 66% higher returns! What a laugh in so many ways, it isn't even worth discussing all the methodological errors. No, it's possible that they just found the best person for the job instead of the best white male?
|
|
|
Post by terps530 on Jan 6, 2014 11:17:53 GMT -8
LOL, you must be kidding with that correlation bullshit. Merely by having vaginas in their boardrooms, companies are so enriched they make 66% higher returns! What a laugh in so many ways, it isn't even worth discussing all the methodological errors. No, it's possible that they just found the best person for the job instead of the best white male? the best person = the best white male OoOoOoOoO ZING #genderracewar #men>women #stayinkitchen (this post is a joke for the literal ones out there)
|
|