They did. Look at what they came up with.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Smart-Shoe-Patents-Sensor,20688.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Issues Statement About Returning Cash to Shareholders
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They did. Look at what they came up with.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Smart-Shoe-Patents-Sensor,20688.html
We won't have to wait that long. At the current rate of accumulation, they should hit $200b by the end of the calendar year. But you never know, it could rain really hard.
There are GPS chips in the iShoes to track customer's location. I won't buy iShoes.
Although I think I master the English language pretty well, I don't understand this. What I do understand is the totally unwarranted sarcasm that oozes from your reply.
Have a nice day and enjoy paying the Apple tax every time you make an Apple purchase. (Yet you must complain about gasoline prices every day, those oil companies have become so greedy). Let's all boost the Apple cash hoard to 150 billion! Yeah!
I wish they would hire a few more people to work on the 'core' apps like Mail on the iPad... or some cloud people to make iCloud a bit more reliable and usable. Or, how about a few people to make their Server product into what it was and could be, rather than shaving features off. Or, some testing and quality control folks to tell them changing things like 'save-as' was a REALLY bad idea before they did it. Or, some folks to help test core apps so it doesn't take 2 or 3 major releases of the OS to get basic features (like searching all fields in Contact... duh!). Maybe even some managers (gasp!) to help interaction between teams working on iOS and OSX versions of an app or product.
One gets the impression that several of these departments at Apple have 2 or 3 people in them, who are too busy to do any testing or interact with the other teams.
Use some of that money to keep a few hard-won markets and product lines around for a while longer, rather than cutting them because their sales numbers or profits don't make quite as high a bar compared to the iPhone any longer.
Or, even bigger, hire a couple folks to review all the UI research Apple did decades ago and put on some training seminars for the newer folks!
they'd probably get even lower returns than just holding it. they spend enough on R&D as it is, with little results because Apple has no good ideas. cash would probably be a bit more productive if they just gave it to shareholders. that would attract more shareholders, increase SE, giving Apple more resources for investment.
Greenlight Capital holds a 0.12 per cent stake in Apple. I would add their correspondence to the spam filters.
Absurd on all counts.
I'm not an Einhorn shill because I'm not invested in any Greenlight funds. The fact is that Apple's investment decisions would be identical to what they have been even if they had paid out cash to investors. They have more cash than they use.
I can also write random sentences.
This doesn't make sense. They could innovate the exact same and still distribute money to shareholders. They aren't using the vasty majority of their money. You don't seem to get it.
No, the fact that you're accusing people who want a return of capital as being the ones out for a quick buck is ludicrous. The whole reason there is any value assigned to a company is because of the assumption of future cash payments/liquidation.
Portfolio of long/short investments? How about Apple sticks to the innovation and computer business rather than being my personal hedge fund I'm forced to buy into every time I want Apple stock.
You need to read a finance textbook from cover to cover. This suggestion reeks of someone who doesn't understand the market.
I'm not an Einhorn shill because I'm not invested in any Greenlight funds. The fact is that Apple's investment decisions would be identical to what they have been even if they had paid out cash to investors. They have more cash than they use.
I can also write random sentences.
This doesn't make sense. They could innovate the exact same and still distribute money to shareholders. They aren't using the vasty majority of their money. You don't seem to get it.
No, the fact that you're accusing people who want a return of capital as being the ones out for a quick buck is ludicrous. The whole reason there is any value assigned to a company is because of the assumption of future cash payments/liquidation.
Portfolio of long/short investments? How about Apple sticks to the innovation and computer business rather than being my personal hedge fund I'm forced to buy into every time I want Apple stock.
You need to read a finance textbook from cover to cover. This suggestion reeks of someone who doesn't understand the market.
Last edited:
If Apple has no good ideas, what good would having more resources for investment do??? LOL
The thing is, AAPL stock price has been all over the place, while nothing fundamental has changed regarding the company, other than better and better performance.
Regarding the cash, what if hard times come? Apple might survive because of having that cash. What if some key acquisition comes along enabling them to make their next market move? If Apple is sticking to innovation and the computer business, then this really shouldn't be about you. If their holding too much cash is a bad move (how the heck could it be?), then sell your stock and invest in something better.
Exactly.
Apple didn't gain success by playing financial silly buggery, they gained success through their ideas and products. The company has been doing fine without input from the shareholders until now.
S T F U.
The thing is though (however unfortunate) is that Badandy is correct in how public companies are seen today. What counts is the investor's whim, not the welfare of the company. Even when it isn't raw, selfish, show me the money thinking (like a lot of the rumor driving trading), it ends up playing out as more short-term than long-term.
Mature. The point is they could have had the exact same financial success without holding this much cash. Say you have a couple thousand dollars to invest. Do you want all of that going to an innovative, high growth tech company or do you want 2/3 going to that company and a third just sitting in cash? That's the point no one is getting. Apple has had enough money to grow over the past ten years without materially drawing on its reserves.
That is actually best best argument for using the term "giving the money back". But that still doesn't change the fact that "giving the money back" means giving the money back to where it came from. And this money came from Apple's customers, not shareholders.
And if the shareholders want their money back, they can always sell their shares
That is actually best best argument for using the term "giving the money back". But that still doesn't change the fact that "giving the money back" means giving the money back to where it came from. And this money came from Apple's customers, not shareholders.
And if the shareholders want their money back, they can always sell their shares
No, it really doesn't mean that at all. You are extrapolating somebody else's choice of words in order to support a rather strange point of view. What's more, your argument that the money should not go to stockholders because it "came from Apple's customers" is peculiar, to say the least. Apparently this is an argument against any company paying any dividends to any stockholders, ever. As we know, that's precisely how the equity markets have functioned for hundreds of years. Not.
I thought most of the anti-dividend crusaders (from what I am hearing here at least) were against the active traders who profit from short term movements of the stock. I guess they are failing to understand that dividends have just the opposite affect, that they reward patient investors who are prepared to wait out short-term fluctuations. The net affect is to dampen volatility.
Finally, I have to wonder what the anti-dividend crusaders think Apple should be doing with the money. Stuff it in the mattress, I guess. Maybe that's what they do with their money.
This is in the nature of the stock markets -- they often trade on pure momentum. This is especially true now, when so much trading is done on programs. You can't make much sense of it, so it's best not to try.
This is a dangerous concept on several levels. First, if Apple was ever to start spending their cash reserves on operations, understand this means that the company is no longer profitable. So if this was ever to come about, it would be an unmitigated disaster for the company, and especially for the stockholders. The entire thought that they might be stockpiling cash against such a catastrophe is unsettling. Second, acquisitions of the type and size that would require over $100b are difficult to imagine. Taking over another large company? Be careful what you wish for.
This is what savvy investors think about when they discuss Apple's capital management philosophy.
So, time for just a little perspective. Apple currently pays out $10b a year in dividends. They took in another $25b in free cash in just the last quarter alone, so the current divided is hardly a nick on a scratch. At this rate they will approach or exceed $200b in cash reserves by the end of the calendar year. This amount of cash is not only immense, it is unprecedented. What's it all for? In the days when Steve ran the company, his answer to that question was "talk to the hand." Now that he's gone, the question is being addressed in a more businesslike fashion.
Finding fault with that? Impossible.
Doesn't have to be in R&D. Investment could be for expansion of business, hiring more people, or building research centers, which is what they're doing. They don't need such a stockpile of cash because they have few liabilities
Quit your petty nonsense..they just gave you guys raises in retail last June. Many of you got up to 4.00 per hour in that raise.
Companies who liquidate their cash reserve to unions, investors, employees are called bankrupt in a short time. Look at the poster childs..GM, Chrysler, and now Dell. Microsoft is not far behind.
So...saving money is "bad" now?
Let me attempt to be more mature. I do not understand this line of thinking.
Yes, Apple does have responsibilities to its shareholders, but not at the expense of short-term greed from these would-be stock manipulators and glorified truthiness legal-esque bustout banisters that would compromise its long-term health and vitality as a corporation.
Think about it: Apple's stock price has dropped about 32 percent from its high, not because it's not a strong company, but because they are being perceived as not having any current "cool" stuff.
So then, it's not about how Apple's innovations impress the public and motivate high sales (although sales and revenues are at all time high, and the collection of revenues are among the highest quarters by ANY company in modern history), it's only about how the perception of "cool new stuff" can drive up the stock price to benefit high-aggregators of stocks for up-and-down price dumping.
I kind of like "old-school, great-grandma during the Depression"-kind of thinking regarding this. Apple will make moves on its assets, but not at the whim of wannabe bustout artists and inside traders.
Let me attempt to be more mature. I do not understand this line of thinking.
Yes, Apple does have responsibilities to its shareholders, but not at the expense of short-term greed from these would-be stock manipulators and glorified truthiness legal-esque bustout banisters that would compromise its long-term health and vitality as a corporation.
Think about it: Apple's stock price has dropped about 32 percent from its high, not because it's not a strong company, but because they are being perceived as not having any current "cool" stuff.
So then, it's not about how Apple's innovations impress the public and motivate high sales (although sales and revenues are at all time high, and the collection of revenues are among the highest quarters by ANY company in modern history), it's only about how the perception of "cool new stuff" can drive up the stock price to benefit high-aggregators of stocks for up-and-down price dumping.
I kind of like "old-school, great-grandma during the Depression"-kind of thinking regarding this. Apple will make moves on its assets, but not at the whim of wannabe bustout artists and inside traders.
Have you seen the new complex that they are building?
So they are doing all of this, spending $2.5 billion per year in R&D (and I would like for them to spend more and do more creative hiring), and still have amassed $137 billion.
Yes they do, because if they listened to guys like Einhorn, in 10-15 years they would be broke and the singsong copycat corporate press would be talking about the "beleaguered" Apple again. Frankly, it seems like they are trying to do it now, but it comes off as fundamentally absurd because of Apple's accumulated warchest.
A pure, simplistic guilt by association argument. Shoot the messenger, then tear up the message. Well done.
The issue of Apple's capital management is longstanding. Lots of knowledgeable, realistic folks have been talking this up for as long as it became clear that Apple was throwing off far more cash than they could spend wisely on growth. Stockholders have been bringing up the issue at annual meetings for years. Steve always brushed them off. Tim Cook is more of a realist, and he actually seems to be listening. This is a good thing, no matter how you spin it.
+1,000,000 !!!
As should Cook (brush them off). When is Wall Street going to discover that our current line of economic thought... IS HORRIBLY BROKEN! Bunch of idiots!
(edit: OK, many of them aren't idiots... they know exactly what they are doing! Financial vampires.)
re: "Lots of knowledgeable, realistic folks..." - Just like the analysts and 'industry experts' who were, and would have run Apple into the ground with all their brilliant ideas of what Apple should do product wise.
What makes it incoherent? Is it in the way that it is expressed or is it just an assertion that you refuse to accept?
Incoherent, in lack of detail or in concepts you are unable to follow, possibly. Nonsense, hardly!
I don't claim to be a stock expert. I'm no economics expert either (though I did have to present a paper in an economics seminar in grad school... so I'm not completely ignorant on the subject).
What I do know quite a bit about is the tech industry. I'm also fairly knowledgable about business, if nothing other, from the school or hard knocks! I am somewhat an expert on human nature with a theological degree focusing on culture. Since economics is a social science, I'm quite qualified to understand and critique the foundations of it (something very few do these days IN economics degrees... according to my former economics professor.)
If nothing else, go rent "Inside Job" some day or just look at all the empirical evidence around you! Modern economic behaviors and many of the principals are seriously flawed.