|
Post by phoebear611 on Feb 18, 2014 3:55:45 GMT -8
Good morning ~ welcome back from your long weekend. I used to love the color white - so pure and simple - but this snow has me hating it these days. If I see anymore snowflakes I think I will put a pencil in my eye.
Ok...so AAPL up initially this morning on the TSLA speculation we spoke about over the weekend. No one knows if the meeting was about an acquisition or a perhaps a joint venture but supposedly Silicon Valley is buzzing about it (fairly good sources). Of course, there could be nothing coming out of that meeting as well but people are fairly certain that there was one and that the most senior of people were involved. Again - lots of speculation - maybe true, maybe not. Also in the news is the talk about AAPL getting into many areas of the medical sector with several new products. I don't think anyone on this board would be surprised at that coming to fruition. Anyway - the point is that there are SO many areas AAPL can venture into with innovation that one can't help but feel excited at what is to come. Here's the thing...wish it could start coming SOON!
All looks green this morning - AAPL was up higher in PM but is virtually unchanged right now. Enjoy the trading day!
|
|
macorange
Member
My actual dog is cuter.
Posts: 60
|
Post by macorange on Feb 18, 2014 5:01:30 GMT -8
As a TSLA and AAPL shareholder, the news makes me smile. But I'm even happier as a Tesla and Apple customer. Nothing I own gives me more satisfaction than the Model S and the iPad/iPhone. These are lovingly made products that are transforming product design, engineering, and functionality in their respective industries. Collaboration between these two most successful innovators can lead to great things in the future.
And Musk is miles closer to being the next SJ than Cook will ever be. Yet Musk could use Cook's talents in supply chain management. It would be a dream team.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Feb 18, 2014 5:02:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by renee on Feb 18, 2014 7:09:23 GMT -8
All luxury consumer goods in Brazil are comparatively very expensive, so I don't see the price of Apple goods as being prohibitive. There is a huge, affluent, young population in Brazil that is accustomed to paying twice as much as the US for designer clothes, restaurants, etc. Also, Brazil will host the World Cup this summer and the Olympics in 2016, so Rio in particular will have a huge influx of tourists.
Needless to say, Apple would sell more products in Brazil if they could bring the price down. Hopefully, the Foxconn factory/assembly plant there will serve to reduce or eliminate the import taxes.
The commentator on the video noted that the launch is very organized and calm, said several times "this is what we have been waiting for", said Apple sets a precedent for the level of quality they offer, and generally described the layout of the store.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Feb 18, 2014 7:32:34 GMT -8
Nice to see us over 550. The Friday call wall has been breached, at least temporally. Pre-annual meeting run? I doubt we'll have any news there.....
|
|
|
Post by elmar on Feb 18, 2014 8:28:54 GMT -8
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 18, 2014 11:26:29 GMT -8
Very interesting article, thanks. And I haven't even gotten to the comments yet. "One person familiar with the situation exec said Apple's refusal to share data makes it the best-looking girl at the party, forced to wear a bag over her head." Seems to me more like "...best-looking girl at the party, wearing a giant diamond and unable to take her eyes off her husband.", i.e., Apple customers. The brand is built on that fidelity. It is also interesting to see Apple attempting to operate in an area where maximizing the customer (advertisers) experience is not their "north star." Their ad sales team must feel like they are living in Bizarro World (Superman reference) if they have any previous experience in other ad firms. Wonder how many times they've viewed the Steve Jobs "Advertising sucks!" video. Obviously there is no clearer indicator to the difference between Apple and Google than in the area of advertising. Horace did several podcasts recently that really illuminated the separation of "users" and "customers" for Google, and how it defines the company business and soul. Should be easy to find if you are interested.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 18, 2014 11:55:39 GMT -8
Nice to see us over 550. The Friday call wall has been breached, at least temporally. Pre-annual meeting run? I doubt we'll have any news there..... CAN'T RESIST SORRY "I hate temporal mechanics"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 13:20:45 GMT -8
So with all these signings it really seems like it's a matter of when, not if the iWatch is coming... www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/apples-iwatch-team-has-grown-more-than-200-people-3425479/"Apple has also reportedly hired a sleep expert from Philips Research, the former chief medical officer at pulse oximeter firm Masimo Corporation, a Nike FuelBand developer, former staff from medical sensor firm Accuvein, C8 MediSensors (which monitors blood) and Senseonics (whose work focuses on glucose monitoring). Recently, Apple also reportedly hired Marcelo Malini Lamego, who is credited in more than 70 patents relating to medical sensors and monitoring technology. In addition, Apple has hired Nancy Dougherty from startup Sano Intelligence and Ravi Narashimhan from general medical devices firm Vital Connect, reports 9To5Mac. Both of these new hires could benefit the iWatch team thanks to their expertise."
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Feb 18, 2014 13:57:17 GMT -8
550 reject one. Stock needs some rest TBH. good job little aapl.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Feb 18, 2014 16:20:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by appleaddict on Feb 18, 2014 16:49:04 GMT -8
Sorry, but I would beg to differ with the lead, "Apple's efforts to take advantage of irrational stock dips in order to buy back its own shares at a discount has transferred billions of dollars from panicked speculators to its long term investors." It transferred billions of dollars from long-term investors. I know I'm not the only one on this board who sold a boatload at the thought of another trip to the $400s. Tim Cook didn't mention what a great bargain AAPL was a year ago when it hit $385. And he didn't back it up in the conference call.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 18, 2014 17:41:12 GMT -8
Tesla would be bankrupt without government subsidies, which start at like $7500 per car, and go as high as $11.5K in some states that like to flush taxpayer money into other people's garages, plus carbon credit extortion paid from other car companies: Apple, OTOH, has like 38% gross margins without huge government loans or taxpayer subsidies or its competitors being forced to pay it millions. These companies aren't even remotely alike. WTF is it with some of you people and Tesla and Musk? When has Musk ever run a profitable, let alone wildly profitable, high-margin company? Let alone creatively destroyed like 7 or 8 industries with innovation? A lot of smart people on this board who really seem to understand Apple turn nutty when they discuss TSLA. Give this shit a rest, please!
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Feb 18, 2014 17:42:48 GMT -8
Sorry, but I would beg to differ with the lead, "Apple's efforts to take advantage of irrational stock dips in order to buy back its own shares at a discount has transferred billions of dollars from panicked speculators to its long term investors." It transferred billions of dollars from long-term investors. I know I'm not the only one on this board who sold a boatload at the thought of another trip to the $400s. Tim Cook didn't mention what a great bargain AAPL was a year ago when it hit $385. And he didn't back it up in the conference call. I don't get your point .... in fact I think the headline is spot on. That sell off made absolutely no sense and people panicked, including many on this board. I can fully understand why after what we have all been through the last 18 months ... and your point is well taken but the fact still remains that it did not make any sense given what Apple was reporting and Apple did indeed make a nice chunk of change buying back around $500 and thereby increasing shareholder value. $14 Billion bought around $500 and we are up roughly 10% ... so $1.4 BILLION made in roughly 3 weeks If that's not one hell of a increase in shareholder value I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Post by po1nt on Feb 18, 2014 17:53:36 GMT -8
Sorry, but I would beg to differ with the lead, "Apple's efforts to take advantage of irrational stock dips in order to buy back its own shares at a discount has transferred billions of dollars from panicked speculators to its long term investors." It transferred billions of dollars from long-term investors. I know I'm not the only one on this board who sold a boatload at the thought of another trip to the $400s. Tim Cook didn't mention what a great bargain AAPL was a year ago when it hit $385. And he didn't back it up in the conference call. I don't get your point .... in fact I think the headline is spot on. That sell off made absolutely no sense and people panicked, including many on this board. I can fully understand why after what we have all been through the last 18 months ... and your point is well taken but the fact still remains that it did not make any sense given what Apple was reporting and Apple did indeed make a nice chunk of change buying back around $500 and thereby increasing shareholder value. $14 Billion bought around $500 and we are up roughly 10% ... so $1.4 BILLION made in roughly 3 weeks If that's not one hell of a increase in shareholder value I don't know what is. Not to mention the savings from not paying the dividend in those shares.....in perpetuity.
|
|
|
Post by appleaddict on Feb 18, 2014 18:10:34 GMT -8
Sorry, but I would beg to differ with the lead, "Apple's efforts to take advantage of irrational stock dips in order to buy back its own shares at a discount has transferred billions of dollars from panicked speculators to its long term investors." It transferred billions of dollars from long-term investors. I know I'm not the only one on this board who sold a boatload at the thought of another trip to the $400s. Tim Cook didn't mention what a great bargain AAPL was a year ago when it hit $385. And he didn't back it up in the conference call. I don't get your point .... in fact I think the headline is spot on. That sell off made absolutely no sense and people panicked, including many on this board. I can fully understand why after what we have all been through the last 18 months ... and your point is well taken but the fact still remains that it did not make any sense given what Apple was reporting and Apple did indeed make a nice chunk of change buying back around $500 and thereby increasing shareholder value. $14 Billion bought around $500 and we are up roughly 10% ... so $1.4 BILLION made in roughly 3 weeks If that's not one hell of a increase in shareholder value I don't know what is. My point is Apple should have taken better care of its investors over the last 18 months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 19:02:08 GMT -8
I don't get your point .... in fact I think the headline is spot on. That sell off made absolutely no sense and people panicked, including many on this board. I can fully understand why after what we have all been through the last 18 months ... and your point is well taken but the fact still remains that it did not make any sense given what Apple was reporting and Apple did indeed make a nice chunk of change buying back around $500 and thereby increasing shareholder value. $14 Billion bought around $500 and we are up roughly 10% ... so $1.4 BILLION made in roughly 3 weeks If that's not one hell of a increase in shareholder value I don't know what is. My point is Apple should have taken better care of its investors over the last 18 months. I agree...and I dont think the sell off was unreasonable either. Apple's guidance for the April quarter was pretty disappointing. I remember seeing people here calling for 50B in revenue, and they guided to a high of 44B, essentially the same as last year which didn't have China Mobile. As I've said before, I think Apple's growth days are over until a new product comes out. Thankfully I believe the iWatch will come out this summer. Tim said this year for a new category and I can't imagine having new iPads, iPhones, iWatch and everything else Apple releases all come out in the same 3 month window.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Feb 18, 2014 20:01:50 GMT -8
Tesla would be bankrupt without government subsidies, which start at like $7500 per car, and go as high as $11.5K in some states that like to flush taxpayer money into other people's garages, plus carbon credit extortion paid from other car companies: Apple, OTOH, has like 38% gross margins without huge government loans or taxpayer subsidies or its competitors being forced to pay it millions. These companies aren't even remotely alike. WTF is it with some of you people and Tesla and Musk? When has Musk ever run a profitable, let alone wildly profitable, high-margin company? Let alone creatively destroyed like 7 or 8 industries with innovation? A lot of smart people on this board who really seem to understand Apple turn nutty when they discuss TSLA. Give this shit a rest, please! If it makes you feel any better, the Tesla talk over at Braeburn is entirely goofy. People inventing battery synergies, seemingly oblivious to the most basic knowledge regarding batteries. Tesla is wiring together off-the-shelf batteries into a big pack and supposedly there is some kind of lesson there for Apple. If power guys over at Apple were to read some of this stuff, they would like go into hysterics, as these places are supposedly home to some kind of special insight re Apple. All kinds of people with opinions on stuff they are entirely clueless about. Including a famous alumni or two from here. Nutty is right.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,555
|
Post by mark on Feb 18, 2014 21:07:11 GMT -8
My point is Apple should have taken better care of its investors over the last 18 months. I agree...and I dont think the sell off was unreasonable either. Apple's guidance for the April quarter was pretty disappointing. I remember seeing people here calling for 50B in revenue, and they guided to a high of 44B, essentially the same as last year which didn't have China Mobile. As I've said before, I think Apple's growth days are over until a new product comes out. Thankfully I believe the iWatch will come out this summer. Tim said this year for a new category and I can't imagine having new iPads, iPhones, iWatch and everything else Apple releases all come out in the same 3 month window. I wouldn't be so thankful about an iWatch because an iWatch alone won't even move the needle regarding growth. It's an adjunct product, an accessory of sorts, and even if it has reasonably high margins, being an accessory, it cannot be priced all that high if you want to see some decent volume of sales. So, if it's priced at $200 and sells 10 million a quarter for the first few quarters, it's still only $2B additional revenue. And if it's priced at $400 and sells 2 million a quarter, it only adds less than $1B revenue. So, iWatch isn't the "great savior" in the new categories that will bring back growth. I am looking for a new "new category" that we haven't thought of yet, but the team at Apple has thought of and implemented. The kind of new category that is really new, results in fast growth, and perhaps destroys other products by making them obsolete. Kind of like the iPhone did. (I would also love if said new category isn't as rapidly copyable as the iPhone was)
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,555
|
Post by mark on Feb 18, 2014 21:12:22 GMT -8
Tesla would be bankrupt without government subsidies, which start at like $7500 per car, and go as high as $11.5K in some states that like to flush taxpayer money into other people's garages, plus carbon credit extortion paid from other car companies: Apple, OTOH, has like 38% gross margins without huge government loans or taxpayer subsidies or its competitors being forced to pay it millions. These companies aren't even remotely alike. WTF is it with some of you people and Tesla and Musk? When has Musk ever run a profitable, let alone wildly profitable, high-margin company? Let alone creatively destroyed like 7 or 8 industries with innovation? A lot of smart people on this board who really seem to understand Apple turn nutty when they discuss TSLA. Give this shit a rest, please! If it makes you feel any better, the Tesla talk over at Braeburn is entirely goofy. People inventing battery synergies, seemingly oblivious to the most basic knowledge regarding batteries. Tesla is wiring together off-the-shelf batteries into a big pack and supposedly there is some kind of lesson there for Apple. If power guys over at Apple were to read some of this stuff, they would like go into hysterics, as these places are supposedly home to some kind of special insight re Apple. All kinds of people with opinions on stuff they are entirely clueless about. Including a famous alumni or two from here. Nutty is right. Yep. However, the single greatest improvement to mobile devices would be a leap in battery technology. And ... the single greatest improvement to electric cars would be a leap in battery technology. That's why so many of us think that the primary synergy may lie in battery technology. That certainly doesn't mean that the company ought to be purchased (I think that's ridiculous, as an auto company by its nature has very high ongoing capex which would negate most of the benefits of joining the two companies together and wouldn't lead to substantial gains in net earnings). It could mean that the two companies could discuss a joint venture (that may include acquiring a battery company) to jump-start new battery technology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2014 21:12:53 GMT -8
I agree...and I dont think the sell off was unreasonable either. Apple's guidance for the April quarter was pretty disappointing. I remember seeing people here calling for 50B in revenue, and they guided to a high of 44B, essentially the same as last year which didn't have China Mobile. As I've said before, I think Apple's growth days are over until a new product comes out. Thankfully I believe the iWatch will come out this summer. Tim said this year for a new category and I can't imagine having new iPads, iPhones, iWatch and everything else Apple releases all come out in the same 3 month window. I wouldn't be so thankful about an iWatch because an iWatch alone won't even move the needle regarding growth. It's an adjunct product, an accessory of sorts, and even if it has reasonably high margins, being an accessory, it cannot be priced all that high if you want to see some decent volume of sales. So, if it's priced at $200 and sells 10 million a quarter for the first few quarters, it's still only $2B additional revenue. And if it's priced at $400 and sells 2 million a quarter, it only adds less than $1B revenue. So, iWatch isn't the "great savior" in the new categories that will bring back growth. I am looking for a new "new category" that we haven't thought of yet, but the team at Apple has thought of and implemented. The kind of new category that is really new, results in fast growth, and perhaps destroys other products by making them obsolete. Kind of like the iPhone did. (I would also love if said new category isn't as rapidly copyable as the iPhone was) That's the thing...no one has any idea what it will be or what it would sell for. What if it was $299 and covered by Health Insurance companies? What if they sold 50M in the first year with a 60% margin? That's an extra 15B in revenue for the year. Of course just wild guesses, but does anyone really have any idea what an Apple product will sell for and it's popularity before it's even announced? Who said it has to be an accessory to an iPhone? Also, even if it was, perhaps it would further drive iPhone growth and get people excited about AAPL the stock again.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,186
|
Post by JDSoCal on Feb 18, 2014 21:17:29 GMT -8
Tesla would be bankrupt without government subsidies, which start at like $7500 per car, and go as high as $11.5K in some states that like to flush taxpayer money into other people's garages, plus carbon credit extortion paid from other car companies: Apple, OTOH, has like 38% gross margins without huge government loans or taxpayer subsidies or its competitors being forced to pay it millions. These companies aren't even remotely alike. WTF is it with some of you people and Tesla and Musk? When has Musk ever run a profitable, let alone wildly profitable, high-margin company? Let alone creatively destroyed like 7 or 8 industries with innovation? A lot of smart people on this board who really seem to understand Apple turn nutty when they discuss TSLA. Give this shit a rest, please! If it makes you feel any better, the Tesla talk over at Braeburn is entirely goofy. People inventing battery synergies, seemingly oblivious to the most basic knowledge regarding batteries. Tesla is wiring together off-the-shelf batteries into a big pack and supposedly there is some kind of lesson there for Apple. If power guys over at Apple were to read some of this stuff, they would like go into hysterics, as these places are supposedly home to some kind of special insight re Apple. All kinds of people with opinions on stuff they are entirely clueless about. Including a famous alumni or two from here. Nutty is right. All these suggestions about what Apple should do reminds me of The Twilight Zone where the obnoxious guy who works for the ladies underwear company makes like 365 diversification suggestions to his boss in a year, not one of them relating to women's undergarments: A Kind of Stopwatch.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,555
|
Post by mark on Feb 18, 2014 21:58:25 GMT -8
I wouldn't be so thankful about an iWatch because an iWatch alone won't even move the needle regarding growth. It's an adjunct product, an accessory of sorts, and even if it has reasonably high margins, being an accessory, it cannot be priced all that high if you want to see some decent volume of sales. So, if it's priced at $200 and sells 10 million a quarter for the first few quarters, it's still only $2B additional revenue. And if it's priced at $400 and sells 2 million a quarter, it only adds less than $1B revenue. So, iWatch isn't the "great savior" in the new categories that will bring back growth. I am looking for a new "new category" that we haven't thought of yet, but the team at Apple has thought of and implemented. The kind of new category that is really new, results in fast growth, and perhaps destroys other products by making them obsolete. Kind of like the iPhone did. (I would also love if said new category isn't as rapidly copyable as the iPhone was) That's the thing...no one has any idea what it will be or what it would sell for. What if it was $299 and covered by Health Insurance companies? What if they sold 50M in the first year with a 60% margin? That's an extra 15B in revenue for the year. Of course just wild guesses, but does anyone really have any idea what an Apple product will sell for and it's popularity before it's even announced? Who said it has to be an accessory to an iPhone? Also, even if it was, perhaps it would further drive iPhone growth and get people excited about AAPL the stock again. 1. Nobody is ready to handle the "big data" coming from such a device to the medical industry. 2. HIPAA doesn't necessarily allow free flow of that kind of data. 3. 50M is a lot for that kind of product. Please recall that the entire wearable market is less than $6B now. 4. $299 is a lot for that kind of product, but I agree if there is something medically revolutionary, it may be a good value. 5. The realities of battery technology means that it has to be an accessory to something that can provide Internet connectivity.
|
|