AAPL Opens at $144, Sliding Nearly 10% After Major Revenue Cut and Down 35% Since Early November

[ntlman]

Not true. The 150 mio investment DID NOT SAVE APPLE. It is an often repeated myth - a myth nonetheless. When MS invested, Apple still had about 1.2 bn $ cash reserves and would very likely have survived anyway. (also see https://www.cultofmac.com/567497/microsoft-investment-saves-apple/)

Steve Jobs later commented that this investment did not save Apple, but it certainly helped by supporting customer trust in the Apple platform (which was SJs intention behind the whole deal).

A year prior to Jobs returning to Apple, they lost over $1 billion, despite $7 billion of revenue (the company was only worth $4 billion at the time). That cash was going to run out fast.

The $150 million investment came because Steve Jobs went to Bill Gates and ended the Windows copyright infringement suit. In exchange for $150 million and commitment to Office for Mac, Apple agreed to

1. Drop all future litigation claims regarding proprietary GUI elements for the OS
2. Make MS Internet Explorer the default web browser on all Macs

So, yes you're right: the $150m investment ALONE did not save Apple. Kissing Bill Gates' ass and begging for his help saved Apple. That kind of "Break Glass In Case of Emergency" move is no longer available to them.

 

[Defthand]

Ive is not going to be able to solve things by himself; don't forget he was at Apple for 5 years before Jobs returned with little to show for it until he was directly working under Jobs.

Post-Jobs fanbois don’t realize how much of their favorite toys are just iterations of ideas conceived before Cook’s promotion. They can’t fantom how Job’s personal philosophy defined the brand’s best attributes. Or that his micromanagement and personal tastes were more defining than that of commitees after his death.

 

[Rogifan]

Post-Jobs fanbois don’t realize how much of their favorite toys are just iterations of ideas conceived before Cook’s promotion. They can’t fantom how Job’s personal philosophy defined the brand’s best attributes. Or that his micromanagement and personal tastes were more defining than that of commitees after his death.

I wish there was a button here where you could automatically put anyone who uses the term fanbois on ignore. If the term fanbois should be applied to anyone it should be the cult of Jobs fanatics.

 

[cenetti]

When Steve released the first iPhone in 2007, it was expensive and exclusive. But people paid the premium and waited in line for hours, went trough the hassle of changing service providers. All because it was new tech. It was innovative, nothing like it.

Same thing with ipad. People paid the huge premium when it first came out. Because it was NEW, exciting and innovative.

People WILL PAY the premium if they can innovate. Releasing a phone with a huge notch is NOT innovative. It's just sht design.

 

[kruegdude]

Lesson learned?

Yeah, that the MacRumors comment forum is where people use it to voice their anger and frustrations.
[doublepost=1546548821][/doublepost]

I wish there was a button here where you could automatically put anyone who uses the term fanbois on ignore. If the term fanbois should be applied to anyone it should be the cult of Jobs fanatics.

It needs to be list driven, I have a lot of phrases I’d add to it.

 

[ntlman]

Everyone knows that Steve Jobs made a lot of mistakes himself (Apple 3, Lisa, Cube G4, etc), but he had a consistent winning vision of products and ecosystem software that reflected his singular view of tech and user needs. But if one were to look at the history of Apple as a whole, a clear dividing line can be made between their entire history. And the majority of sustainable successes they achieved with Jobs at the helm.

Prior to him returning, the only outright success they had post-1986 was the PowerBook. And eventually they messed that up too. AW is iPhone-dependent, and while the jury is still out on the HP, it is not looking good.

 

[furi0usbee]

I see it getting much worse. If the trade war continues and people continue to not want to spend $1k on a throw-away phone, I can see <$100/share. Aside from charging $2k for the next iPhone, what is Apple's strategy to make money and continue their precious growth? We all know they gave up on the pro market. They pretty much gave up on the consumer market when it comes to computers. Phones and watches alone won't keep you at a trillion dollar valuation... They have lost focus on all the other parts of their ecosystem, which set everyone up for the phone.

 

[Baymowe335]

Yet they couldn’t make a sturdy iPad Pro.

I love mine. If yours is bent, you should return it. iPad revenue was up double digits, so many are buying them.

 

[filmbuff]

E
Prior to him returning, the only outright success they had post-1986 was the PowerBook. And eventually they messed that up too.

Just curious about Apple history - how did they mess that up?

 

[DakotaGuy]

I think Steve's inertia is starting to wear off. Tim would have been good until they found someone with vision to take over. Tim is a visionless, platitude machine.

Scott Forstall was Steve Jobs protege. If Jobs had lived a few more years and Forstall would have been a little older with more experience he would have named the CEO to replace Jobs. Cook was a the safe "bean counter" to keep things going smooth for a few years, but with no vision and little enthusiasm for the products his tenure is starting to be a drag on Apple. They fired Forstall soon after Steve Jobs died because he was too close to a "young Steve" and he scared them.

 

[Defthand]

I wish there was a button here where you could automatically put anyone who uses the term fanbois on ignore. If the term fanbois should be applied to anyone it should be the cult of Jobs fanatics.

No doubt we were former fanbois. In fact, some of us were more than that. We were evangelists.

What differentiates Old School fanbois from today’s, is that the original Apple was an underdog and maverick, rejecting the status quo. Today’s Apple and its fanbois are the status quo.

If you take offense to the label, them maybe your passion for the brand isn’t meaningful.

 

[Baymowe335]

Scott Forstall was Steve Jobs protege. If Jobs had lived a few more years and Forstall would have been a little older with more experience he would have named the CEO to replace Jobs. Cook was a the safe "bean counter" to keep things going smooth for a few years, but with no vision and little enthusiasm for the products his tenure is starting to be a drag on Apple. They fired Forstall soon after Steve Jobs died because he was too close to a "young Steve" and he scared them.

Cook is far more than a "bean counter," and Steve knew this. That's why he made him the highest paid executive at Apple years and eventually the CEO.

 

[dampfnudel]

Honestly, Apple needed this kick in the rear. The market has spoken about the pricing of Apple's products (in relation to features). Time to innovate again and sell products at reasonable prices.

Some companies learn from a lesson like this and some don’t. I believe Apple will learn, but it might take someone other than Tim at the top to make that happen.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Cook is far more than a "bean counter," and Steve knew this. That's why he made him the highest paid executive at Apple years and eventually the CEO.

Tim Cook is MUCH closer to a John Sculley type CEO then a Steve Jobs. Remember Sculley was also very successful for several years after Jobs left before things started to fall apart.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

Angela Ahrendts will be the next Apple CEO.

Bookmark me.

I think you're right. They're keen on ticking boxes for the sake of it at the moment so regardless of if it's merit-based or not I think she's in with the best chance.
[doublepost=1546550460][/doublepost]

[...] People WILL PAY the premium if they can innovate. Releasing a phone with a huge notch is NOT innovative. It's just sht design.

You're not wrong. If they released a non-gimped 4" full display phone with no camera bump and chamfered edges I'd pay a mint for that.

 

[ntlman]

Just curious about Apple history - how did they mess that up?

According to WIRED magazine, they had over $1million in back orders for the PowerBook... but filled the warehouses with unwanted Performas instead.

Also, as the previous owner of a PowerBook 5300c, that machine was utter crap. Actual peeling of the display from the plastic shell, and the battery was terrible. They hyped this computer way up by featuring it in the first Mission Impossible movie and Independence Day in the summer of '96, and it only ended up a major embarassment.

 

[SmileyBlast!]

Honestly, Apple needed this kick in the rear. The market has spoken about the pricing of Apple's products (in relation to features). Time to innovate again and sell products at reasonable prices.

Any Idea how they can fix this?

My thoughts. Ditch Creepy Face ID. Get Touch ID working under Glass. Have reasonable RAM configurations like 128 GB and 256 GB in the line up. Bezel-less design as much as possible. Beef up security and assure us that we are not being tracked or spied on. No Back Doors. Improve the rear/front camera with depth of field software compensation. Set the price around $800 for the high end model. A thicker top bezel is permissible to house the front camera and ear speaker. Include the Lightning to 1/8 sony Jack in the box.
Then watch sales return.

For the IPad Get something working in the fold-able screen space. Overall Avoid Carcinogenic 5G.

 

[MoreRumors?]

Is $80 billion plus dollars now seen as chump change? It is substantially larger than $999 million dollars. Apple is still generating a lot of revenue. If the downward trend in revenue continues with the following quarters, then you know there is a problem.

 

[SmileyBlast!]

no company can innovate around a trade war.

It's also a demographics thing. Baby boomers are saving for retirement. Gen X through Z can't afford $1000 + phones. Especially when cheaper options are there.

 

[Abazigal]

This is why I don’t buy shares. I simply don’t have the heart for this sort of stuff.

 

[alexnyc8]

Stock buybacks are bad and hurt the little guy
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4139081-stock-buybacks-make-rich-richer-poorer

Regarding stock crash - Apple is simply following the broader market that was inflated by Fed printing gazilions of dollars since 2008 market bailout (I bet most younger people don't even remember the 2008 crash because they were still kids)
Rising tide floated all the boats, falling tide will do the opposite - whats worse, the illusionary wealth that enabled people to buy $1000 phones will disappear, accelerating the problem.

 

[ntlman]

It's also a demographics thing. Baby boomers are saving for retirement. Gen X through Z can't afford $1000 + phones. Especially when cheaper options are there.

As a Gen-Xer, I will probably end up doing something similar to what I did in the late 90s until Apple righted the ship by 2001: I bought one of those excess inventory Performas and installed a Sonnet Crescendo upgrade card. It worked great for me until I finally bought a brand new G4 tower in 2004. I had a workable Mac that could run the latest software, but I didn't have to commit financial hari-kari as a recent college grad in order to obtain it.

I did that move because while I was not happy with the direction Apple had been going in at the time, and wasn't sure if Jobs could turn it around, I was still a crazy Apple f.b. and hoped for the best. So I did what I could to keep in the ecosystem and fortunately my faith was rewarded.

I'll still hoping for a turnaround, but that faith is severely tempered without Jobs around.

 

[cycomiko]

When Steve released the first iPhone in 2007, it was expensive and exclusive. But people paid the premium and waited in line for hours, went trough the hassle of changing service providers. All because it was new tech. It was innovative, nothing like it.

Same thing with ipad. People paid the huge premium when it first came out. Because it was NEW, exciting and innovative.

People WILL PAY the premium if they can innovate. Releasing a phone with a huge notch is NOT innovative. It's just sht design.

some people paid.

When the price reduced, for both the iphone and the ipad, then sales took off. Without those price reductions, sales would have never gotten to where they are.

 

[apolloa]

Not if that 35% drop was irrational. Nothing has happened to Apple that would justify that drop. Even with this downturn, they absolutely print money. APPL trades at far less than it should based on Apple’s earnings. They are irrationally held to an insane standard that somehow doesn’t apply even to stocks that should be comparable, like Amazon.

The news isn’t good, but Apple’s profit in a bad quarter is still the envy of the industry.

In your opinion.. you cannot excuse a 35% drop no matter how hard you try as that’s massive. Apple can print as much money as it wants, that doesn’t win over shareholders hence the plummet in share price.
Please do show the last time Amazon lost 35% of its share price in 1 and a half months.

 

[x-evil-x]

Greed is good...until you cross the line

Greed is never good. Making customers feel good about their purchase is what a company needs.