And they're too busy on PC building forums to buy Apple products, so what's it matter?
Apple is clearly a consumer oriented company, arguing that they would boost sales by touting processor X or Y is a fools errand.
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 CEO Tim Cook Teases 'Great Innovation' in Product Pipeline on CNBC's Mad Money
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple is clearly a consumer oriented company, arguing that they would boost sales by touting processor X or Y is a fools errand.
You are in denial of the facts - look at the chart over Cook's 5 years as CEO - no growth. That is hardly a day trader / short term investor perspective. I have held AAPL for decades and made an excellent return from Steve's time as CEO 2.0 - Cook is not delivering - short and simple.
So now changing to something else after pushing the stock part that didn't hold up. Yup, some strong arguments there indeed.
[doublepost=1462378818][/doublepost]
The price isn't up since Cook took over. What made up charts are these?
I agree. Steve 2.0 took it from the baby to 18 years old. Now you're mad cause growth is slow but 18 -year olds don't grow at the same rate as a baby. Companies have strong growth in the start, slow growth when they are big. When they are big, you either hold for long, or you play the investors and sell at a peak like a Carl Ichan. Thats not Tim's fault. A $500 billion company cannot grow 3x year over year like a $1 million dollar company or even a $1 billion dollar company can. Apple is a giant!
If you're not making money off Cook, that's your fault. His job is to be a good manager and not sink the ship. If he starts acting wild just to please investors short-term gratification needs, he would be a screw up. But the man is inhuman which is why Steve gave him the keys to the yacht.
My advice is—if you made a ton of money off Apple, either keep it steady for another 10+ years, or sell now, and reinvest your profits. Flip flip flip. But pick one. Don't get mad because your money doesn't double every quarter. I don't think that's how things work.
If I'm wrong, I'm all ears. Teach me.
It probably wouldn't affect share price directly. But Apple products once had some cachet being able to state, flatly, that they were the fastest, bestest products on the market. Surely you recall the "we've achieved the gigaflops!" boast of many years past.
Whether a prospective buyer really knew or cared which processor he was buying wasn't important. The important thing was that, if it had an Apple on it, the buyer could trust he was getting the zenith of performance for his extra dollars. That perception was important for a product that never tried to compete on price.
When a competitor (or a tech editor!) can point to an Intel SKU for sale in an Apple product and out it as being behind everyone else's stuff, the details aren't as important as the perception that Apple is no longer leading performance.
Arguments and deflections like, "well, nobody needs anything faster/better" don't really restore that perception. Without it, paying more for Apple computers is a harder sell.
Let me try.
To start with you are making some extreme statements to further your point of view that are not correct - I have highlighted them in red / bold. I hope those don't need an explanation.
Cook's job is, first and foremost, to generate ROI for shareholders, and he is failing at that.
Where are the streaming video / content deals?
Where are the magical new products that Cook keeps touting "in the pipeline"?
Where are the outcomes from the $3,000,000,000 Beats deal?
Why do we have a $2,000,000,000 overrun on the new building?
What has Angela contributed for her $70,000,000 compensation?
Why does Apple spend $135,000,000,000 on buybacks but but only give a paltry 2% dividend with $230,000,000,000 cash on hand?
Not intending to be rude - but I hardly need investing advice from you. My long term investing ROI is outstanding. My AAPL holdings though are recent 4 year dogs. Why - see the above questions. It is not about being mad - it is about seeing a trend of returns being dismal AND Apple having so much money that they are wasting or letting sit idle.
Cook is responsible for understanding and positioning Apple to deal with the elementary product cycles and law of large numbers that you and others are commenting on.
Last edited:
Sure....to tech nerds (myself included) and tech reviewers.
For consumers, they just buy the damn mac if they want it. If you're weighing the pros and cons of a given sku for your laptop, you are NOT Apple's target consumer market.
Thanks for your reply and FYI I appreciate this conversation (serious).
Yes, they haven't "cracked" TV yet. Do you have another CEO and executive team in mind, one to be put in Apple's position—at this point in time the way the media industry is (a stagnant mess by the way). I don't remember Jobs cracking them like the music company. The media companies are a different group, who got smart quick after the music industry caved to Job's demands. Jobs had 1 huge advantage—Napster and P2P being a tsunami to the music industry. Media companies aren't in the same panic. Media companies are now owned by conglomerates. These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America [source]. Cook can't play a round of golf with these guys and take their lunch money.
2001: iPod
2007: iPhone + AppleTV
2009: MacBook Air
2010: iPad
2015: Apple Watch + rMacBook
2016: Current
Apple doesn't release a new product category every year. Just as importantly, Apple has to grow the product line and increase revenue and profits per product arm.
Innovation: I don't just want an iPhone, I want an iPhone 5 (the model I think is pinnacle of the line). It takes much work to make a product evolve to those critical points. And it takes a while before Apple maximizes sales. I don't want and haven't bought an Apple Watch yet. Theres gonna be a few release cycles before I have to own one. It may be Apple Watch 2, but maybe Apple Watch 3. Apple, please focus on that, not just new products that divide the company at a rate it can't handle currently.
I'm sure Cook is hinting at the car, etc, and new upcoming redesign of retina MacBook Pros, and of course the iPhone 7 in September, and of course Apple Watch 2. Who know what else is in the pipeline. You can want magic, but expecting magic year in and year out isn't fair. We live in reality. We can bend reality to our will bit by bit, and sometimes make huge strides, but I certainly can't demand it from Apple every single quarter. In fact many of us complain, rightfully so, that we'd rather Apple tend to the garden and improve services, the watch, the OSes, and current MacBook line. If they don't, we don't upgrade or detract to competitors. Isn't it Cooks job to make sure that doesn't happen? Wouldn't stock be negatively affected if it did?
In the short term $3B is hard to stomach but those Beats guys made a billion in sales with only ~30 employees in an office. Thats a lot of revenue per employee. Thats genius and they now work at Apple.
These are solid business management moves that don't look pretty in the short term. But long term its not hard to see how the ecosystem is strengthened with these actions. One day "look its waterproof" isn't gonna sell Samsung phones anymore; It's gonna be a cultural attachment, ala Beats headphones and the iPod before it.
EDIT: Forgot to mention: In 2018 when Apple goes wireless headphone (and Samsung and company follow, of course), people will begin buying bluetooth headphones. Thats when Beats wireless headphone line is going to make a killing. But I suspect acquisition is more a focus on their expertise on branding, marketing, advertising—and more importantly music industry expertise. You're seeing all that with the new deals with Taylor Swift and Drake. Artists and Athletes are going to start pimping Apple Music and Beats in the coming years. This is going to be a competitive advantage only strengthened in time. How is Samsung and company going to compete on a cultural level? Does the ad with Lil' Wayne pouring champaign on an S7 equate to the master plan Apple is playing here? I don't see it.
Only super-practical, conservative, and price-sensitive personality consumer profiles (eg. Toyota buyers) are going to stay adamant about Android's superiority. I'm seeing Reddit posts now left and right from Android/PC people going "I get it now. Sorry I hated on Apple all these years. The iPhone 5/6 brought me in. And now I love my MacBook and the ecosystem. I'm not going back."
Stocks do better when everything starts out bad, and then gets WAY great in a relatively quick period. And I don't see Apple doing that. In my opinion, Apple can do that when they enter a new industry (eg. Car Industry.) What do you want Apple to do in the meantime? Release new "smart cups" that count juice calories and have bluetooth connectivity? Thats what Kickstarter is for. Apple is going to steadily grow their new products (Apple Watch eg.), hold their existing products, optimize business functions, manage the supply chain, and experiment and explore entering new, established industries (that will be a huge challenge by the way due to competitors). None of those things are sexy for stockholders right now. What do you want, other than that "smart cup"?
The only flaw is from a Mac fan perspective. They seem to be losing Mac Pro and Mac Mini fans, for example, because that line accounts for such a small number of the market, and people (including coming generations) don't want a big, heavy computer that sits under a desk, that you can't bring to Starbucks or meeting to meeting. From a stock-holder perspective, why would you want Apple to continue making heavy computers that are clearly not the future of computing (specific niche industries being an exception)? I can't remember the last time I saw a desktop except for at an elementary school. And they all had 5-7 year old beige PCs.
Don't investors want Apple working on disposable computing devices that people feel attached to and culturally brain-washed to value—with huge up-sell and cross-sell potential? That is everything Cook et. al. has done...invest in those things. Who else would do a better job? I don't see it.
It's insane what Apple has done year after year and everyone is unimpressed. And that's crazy to me.
Depends which stockholders, and what they want—is my point. But this is a very philosophical perspective. I'm trying to stay open to yours.
We're getting granular, but ok, happy to:
Yes, they haven't "cracked" TV yet. Do you have another CEO and executive team in mind, one to be put in Apple's position—at this point in time the way the media industry is (a stagnant mess by the way). I don't remember Jobs cracking them like the music company. The media companies are a different group, who got smart quick after the music industry caved to Job's demands. Jobs had 1 huge advantage—Napster and P2P being a tsunami to the music industry. Media companies aren't in the same panic. Media companies are now owned by conglomerates. These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America [source]. Cook can't play a round of golf with these guys and take their lunch money.
1998: iMac
2001: iPod
2007: iPhone + AppleTV
2009: MacBook Air
2010: iPad
2015: Apple Watch + rMacBook
2016: Current
Apple doesn't release a new product category every year. Just as importantly, Apple has to grow the product line and increase revenue and profits per product arm.
Innovation: I don't just want an iPhone, I want an iPhone 5 (the model I think is pinnacle of the line). It takes much work to make a product evolve to those critical points. And it takes a while before Apple maximizes sales. I don't want and haven't bought an Apple Watch yet. Theres gonna be a few release cycles before I have to own one. It may be Apple Watch 2, but maybe Apple Watch 3. Apple, please focus on that, not just new products that divide the company at a rate it can't handle currently.
I'm sure Cook is hinting at the car, etc, and new upcoming redesign of retina MacBook Pros, and of course the iPhone 7 in September, and of course Apple Watch 2. Who know what else is in the pipeline. You can want magic, but expecting magic year in and year out isn't fair. We live in reality. We can bend reality to our will bit by bit, and sometimes make huge strides, but I certainly can't demand it from Apple every single quarter. In fact many of us complain, rightfully so, that we'd rather Apple tend to the garden and improve services, the watch, the OSes, and current MacBook line. If they don't, we don't upgrade or detract to competitors. Isn't it Cooks job to make sure that doesn't happen? Wouldn't stock be negatively affected if it did?
They hit the ground running with Apple Music. It has its problems v1.0 but overall it works, and will go from "good enough" to "Amazing!". More so, its not even about Apple Music—it's about the device and ecosystem. It becomes a barrier to competition, a competitive advantage. It factors into buyers decision process. I don't even know if Samsung has a music streaming service. And Apple music is a huge marketing and promotion strategy world wide and growing. Drake, Tailor Swift, etc are all pimping their fan base to Apple. You know this coming generation is 100% Apple, unless they are in a specific industry post-college. They just got started and I feel bad for Tidal et. al.
In the short term $3B is hard to stomach but those Beats guys made a billion in sales with only ~30 employees in an office. Thats a lot of revenue per employee. Thats genius and they now work at Apple.
These are solid business management moves that don't look pretty in the short term. But long term its not hard to see how the ecosystem is strengthened with these actions. One day "look its waterproof" isn't gonna sell Samsung phones anymore; It's gonna be a cultural attachment, ala Beats headphones and the iPod before it.
EDIT: Forgot to mention: In 2018 when Apple goes wireless headphone (and Samsung and company follow, of course), people will begin buying bluetooth headphones. Thats when Beats wireless headphone line is going to make a killing. But I suspect acquisition is more a focus on their expertise on branding, marketing, advertising—and more importantly music industry expertise. You're seeing all that with the new deals with Taylor Swift and Drake. Artists and Athletes are going to start pimping Apple Music and Beats in the coming years. This is going to be a competitive advantage only strengthened in time. How is Samsung and company going to compete on a cultural level? Does the ad with Lil' Wayne pouring champaign on an S7 equate to the master plan Apple is playing here? I don't see it.
Only super-practical, conservative, and price-sensitive personality consumer profiles (eg. Toyota buyers) are going to stay adamant about Android's superiority. I'm seeing Reddit posts now left and right from Android/PC people going "I get it now. Sorry I hated on Apple all these years. The iPhone 5/6 brought me in. And now I love my MacBook and the ecosystem. I'm not going back."
Currently employees are scattered throughout bay area if various offices. The real estate boom there is impenetrable and Apple was leasing offices at mad prices. Hence this new campus. Now, not only will they save money in the long term, they will have all their employees and a cross-pollination culture. This is a smart investment. A company is, after all, hinged on the ability of its people to do what they do, and to attract the best of the best. This $2B building is an investment in that. Wise move don't you think? Or should Apple be cheap? Don't they have the cash (per your point)?
Ha. Kind of agree with your point here. Although
- Cook messed up with the last hire. This was his way of guaranteeing that retail and the brand would continue as planned.
- I think she did a great job (best she could do with the reality of what Apple Watch 1 was) selling AW to the fashion world. Now it's up to the engineers to get AW2 improved for 2016/17.
I don't have much knowledge on hand here so I will just hear you out if you care to enlighten me on buybacks and dividends. Aren't buybacks good for steadiness and increasing value of stock? Aren't dividends a leak in profit? I'm pretty sure Apple hoards because Tech industry and bubbles are so insane, they want to remain viable for ever. Isn't all that cash F-You Money?
I understand your sentiments but again, Apple & Cook brought great products and services (and updates) into life in the last 4 years, and great sales numbers. It appears to me that the only reason Apple stock "sucks" is because stock price is contingent on people (investors) behavior and confidence and the world is always over-expecting on Apple, so Apple is always under-delivering. It's entitlement. And is manipulation by those that know how to pump and dump (eg. Icahn).
Stocks do better when everything starts out bad, and then gets WAY great in a relatively quick period. And I don't see Apple doing that. In my opinion, Apple can do that when they enter a new industry (eg. Car Industry.) What do you want Apple to do in the meantime? Release new "smart cups" that count juice calories and have bluetooth connectivity? Thats what Kickstarter is for. Apple is going to steadily grow their new products (Apple Watch eg.), hold their existing products, optimize business functions, manage the supply chain, and experiment and explore entering new, established industries (that will be a huge challenge by the way due to competitors). None of those things are sexy for stockholders right now. What do you want, other than that "smart cup"?
Is he not dealing with them? Where are his product flaws? They seem to be the same ol' Apple.
The only flaw is from a Mac fan perspective. They seem to be losing Mac Pro and Mac Mini fans, for example, because that line accounts for such a small number of the market, and people (including coming generations) don't want a big, heavy computer that sits under a desk, that you can't bring to Starbucks or meeting to meeting. From a stock-holder perspective, why would you want Apple to continue making heavy computers that are clearly not the future of computing (specific niche industries being an exception)? I can't remember the last time I saw a desktop except for at an elementary school. And they all had 5-7 year old beige PCs.
Don't investors want Apple working on disposable computing devices that people feel attached to and culturally brain-washed to value—with huge up-sell and cross-sell potential? That is everything Cook et. al. has done...invest in those things. Who else would do a better job? I don't see it.
It's insane what Apple has done year after year and everyone is unimpressed. And that's crazy to me.
Last edited:
Anyone got any specifics/quantitative info on what Ahrendts has contributed since joining Apple? As far as I can tell it's zip. Absolutely stupid renumeration package and frankly the shops run themselves and the website too. Can anyone make the case in favour of what she gets paid? At Burberry she rode on the back of the post 2008 recovery, then the stock price went sideways and then she left - typical profile for a second rate CEO - ride economic factors, claim it's your doing then leave before the cost cuttng and staff morale start to hit the stock price. ( oh, forgot to mention the Hermes watch strap tie in.......very fashionable but can't see it adding more than 0.00000000001% to the top or bottom line since only her rich mates will buy it or can afford it).
SAdProZ,
I'm having some difficulty on the site understanding how to respond to the quote of the quote point by point, so I'll give it a go this way:
Cook's job is.../ My belief is that all shareholders want a higher price and bigger dividends. I gave Apple a good percentage of my investing $$ two decades ago. Great returns for sure - but not so much over the last 4 years as Cook's time as CEO grows.
Where are the streaming video.../ I agree with your comments on the media companies. However, Cook could have easily purchased one or more of these to get the ball rolling instead on the wasted buybacks.
Where are the magical new.../ I would not consider the rMacBook as an innovation and certainly not game changing. Installing a higher resolution screen & drivers is an update to the core product - my 2 cents. The watch is a new category but the jury is still out. All in all, not much to tout as "magical" for 5 years as CEO.
Where are the outcomes.../ Still a marginal return, if any, on that investment. Why could Apple, with their cash hoard, not develop a better Beats? Where was that innovation?
Why do we have a $2,000,000,000 overrun.../ I think you missed my point on this - the building was supposed to cost $3,000,000,000 and is now projected at $5,000,000,000 > the overrun. Getting kind of careless with our money.
What has Angela contributed.../ Years ago the stores were mobbed and electric with excitement. My visits to the stores lately show them almost empty, no excitement, nothing new. You are probably correct in your assessment that Cook scrambled to cover for his previous mistake - but I believe he has made another expensive one.
Why does Apple spend $135,000,000,000 on buybacks.../ This has been a huge waste of shareholder value. How well has the stock done these past 4 years? I postulated a wiser use of the cash (as an example) in another thread somewhere. Apple could have done a hostile takeover of Akamai for $12,000,000,000. That would be with a 50% premium over Akamai's current $9 Billion market cap. Cook is wasting a historical amount of cash with ZERO to show for it.
Investing advice.../ - nothing to add here.
Cook is responsible for understanding.../ I do not believe he is dealing with them given the many missed opportunities and lack of performance on ventures to date.
What Apple has accomplished is phenomenal - agreed. Cook's performance on many fronts - not at all. Cook may well go down in history as the CEO who wasted more shareholder value than ...
I'm having some difficulty on the site understanding how to respond to the quote of the quote point by point, so I'll give it a go this way:
Cook's job is.../ My belief is that all shareholders want a higher price and bigger dividends. I gave Apple a good percentage of my investing $$ two decades ago. Great returns for sure - but not so much over the last 4 years as Cook's time as CEO grows.
Where are the streaming video.../ I agree with your comments on the media companies. However, Cook could have easily purchased one or more of these to get the ball rolling instead on the wasted buybacks.
Where are the magical new.../ I would not consider the rMacBook as an innovation and certainly not game changing. Installing a higher resolution screen & drivers is an update to the core product - my 2 cents. The watch is a new category but the jury is still out. All in all, not much to tout as "magical" for 5 years as CEO.
Where are the outcomes.../ Still a marginal return, if any, on that investment. Why could Apple, with their cash hoard, not develop a better Beats? Where was that innovation?
Why do we have a $2,000,000,000 overrun.../ I think you missed my point on this - the building was supposed to cost $3,000,000,000 and is now projected at $5,000,000,000 > the overrun. Getting kind of careless with our money.
What has Angela contributed.../ Years ago the stores were mobbed and electric with excitement. My visits to the stores lately show them almost empty, no excitement, nothing new. You are probably correct in your assessment that Cook scrambled to cover for his previous mistake - but I believe he has made another expensive one.
Why does Apple spend $135,000,000,000 on buybacks.../ This has been a huge waste of shareholder value. How well has the stock done these past 4 years? I postulated a wiser use of the cash (as an example) in another thread somewhere. Apple could have done a hostile takeover of Akamai for $12,000,000,000. That would be with a 50% premium over Akamai's current $9 Billion market cap. Cook is wasting a historical amount of cash with ZERO to show for it.
Investing advice.../ - nothing to add here.
Cook is responsible for understanding.../ I do not believe he is dealing with them given the many missed opportunities and lack of performance on ventures to date.
What Apple has accomplished is phenomenal - agreed. Cook's performance on many fronts - not at all. Cook may well go down in history as the CEO who wasted more shareholder value than ...
Yeah, I don't know. You might be right. I mean, I can't imagine she's 100% flawed but the dude Cook hired before her was. Being optimistic, I'd say she knows how to put the right team together (being an industry veteran) to create an aspirational brand with the watch. Those Hermes bands (for example) aren't going to be Apple's focus for cash, but for branding: increase perceived value. These are cultural moves they have to start learning and mastering asap. Personal Computers used to be for nerds only. It was a hobbiest technology. It's now not just pop-culture, but it's part of our anatomy. We live with an iPhone/android in our hand. It's a lifestyle industry now. I think Apple is making the right moves. But your post makes me question if Angela Ahrendts isn't just propped up by good PR.
Why does Cook insist on referring to things as "people like to use iPod" instead of "people like to use the iPod"? It's an abstraction and sounds like corporate talk.
Every word that comes out of his mouth screams innovation. Never doubted Timmy, especially after ripping off huawei's dual camera tech.
I wonder how much of the current share price movement is due to the Apple share buyback scheme. If they're wasting billions buying their own shares, that will inevitably help to maintain an artificially higher price. But what happens when the buybacks stop? Are the shares going to plummet? I've never known anyone run a company like this.
I read this reply yesterday but haven't had a good moment to respond until now...
May 6, 2011: $49.52
May 5, 2016: $93.24
So a 1,000 stock buy in 2011 would go from value $49,520 to $93,240 in 2016. Thats a profit of $43,720 just for sticking with Apple under Cook.
If you want higher returns I think patience is in order because Cook is clearly investing in a lot of places right now (music, watch, car, phone, supply chain, campus, and so on... meanwhile spending cash and effort to enter new markets—all challenging for even the best managers on the planet).
What do I need to understand to think otherwise? (serious question. I want to learn and I also don't want to remained biased if thats what I am)
So, in this case, Apple took the 13" MacBook Pro, or the 11" MacBook Air (take your pick) and increased the utility of the device for a new or unserved target market (executive-types, travelers, people who want a disposable second computer). If you're a gamer, or need 2 USB-A devices hanging from your laptop, or need high-CPU cycles that don't throttle, or a strong GPU set for OpenCL, then from your perspective Apple did not innovate for you when they released the 12" rMB. But again, for the traveler who just needs to access email attachments and spreadsheets and update that PowerPoint before the big board meeting, it's an innovation you've been waiting for because utility has increased for you.
Keep in mind that Apple always releases "Good enough" that in time becomes dominant. This is early days for what will probably be Apple dominating music (not just digital retail, but marketing) all over again.
I would summarize the Beats acquisition as multiplying Apple's competitive advantage (branding, cultural dominance) over the next 10 years with this acquisition. $3B is a bargain from that perspective. Companies have acquired a lot more expensive companies and immediately squandered the opportunity (eg. HP buying Compaq, Ebay buying Skype). Apple buying Beats immediately payed off, with the world watching. And they just got started.
But I give you the point because owning an iPhone 6S isn't as novelty as it was owning the iPhone 1, 3G, or 4. When Apple Store arrived, it had 10 years to have the exclusive "magical" look and feel—both the actual store and the products inside. Last few years, it's been copied and we're used to it. I don't know that Angela Ahrendts has done a thing to the store design.
Meanwhile other companies have caught on to the importance of store design and in-store experience. Even Best Buy has transformed in the last 3 years and is actually a breath of fresh air now (comparatively). Apple no longer has exclusivity in those things (see Microsoft Store). It's just a different time now. Things have become normalized.
Again, agree with you on the topic of lack of boldness. So much is possible, so much isn't happening. But of what is possible, I don't know the legal ramifications of things, and the complexity and cultural class if they do something as insane as buying Akamai. I just don't know, so I'll give you the point, at the very least, because I would love to see Apple using their buying power more.
I don't know enough to say that Cook could do so much more for shareholders in the short term, but in the long term his job is to grow all those Octopus tentacles (Hail Hydra!) and not screw it up, like, I dunno, Carly Fiorina:
Tim Cook does not equal Carly Fiorina. But compared to Jobs, you're right, he's not as bold.
I'd give him credit so far—he hasn't screwed it up. He's compatible. And I'll remain optimistic that WWDC and new Mac updates are gonna start to help Apple feel right again.
[doublepost=1462506924][/doublepost]
I also don't think that's an "artificial higher price" since it's fundamental market dynamics and it attracts more investors which increases the price.
Essentially, from my limited recall Carl Icahn put the pressure (or woo'd) Apple and Cook and got them to start these buyback and dividend programs. If you remember, beforehand, he kept complaining that Apple had too much cash on hand and that they should start. So they did. And investors flocked. And in around 2015 when prices where at an all time high, Icahn sold his Billions in shares (started to, or most of it, or all) because he knows what he's doing (made $2 Billion), and thats when it became bear and people started to sell. I'd say it was Icahn and the fact that iPhone 6S sales didn't meet investor expectations (but obviously the jump from 5S to large 6 phones would produce a spike in sales that you can't replicate with the S versions that don't change the outer design).
If anything I would say the price is artificially low and that now is a good time to buy if you can hold for 3+ years when Apple goes electric car.
Over our conversation I understand your perspective better (the benefits of communication, to start) and I can sympathize and meet you half way. I'm really reacting to the "disaster" aspect. Seems extreme, especially given that Apple post-jobs is even more complex, and there are more delicacies. If you simply look at this through the lens of "price over 4-years" I maybe start to understand, but then again if you look at Apple's stock since it's start, there are plenty of 4-year periods you wouldn't have made much, including during Jobs. No? And the last four years the stock price doubled if you're only looking at lows.
May 6, 2011: $49.52
May 5, 2016: $93.24
So a 1,000 stock buy in 2011 would go from value $49,520 to $93,240 in 2016. Thats a profit of $43,720 just for sticking with Apple under Cook.
If you want higher returns I think patience is in order because Cook is clearly investing in a lot of places right now (music, watch, car, phone, supply chain, campus, and so on... meanwhile spending cash and effort to enter new markets—all challenging for even the best managers on the planet).
What do I need to understand to think otherwise? (serious question. I want to learn and I also don't want to remained biased if thats what I am)
So on these finer notes I'm going to start agreeing with you. If we view Cook from the lens of "boldness" he's not super bold. It depends on the topic. With Gov & Privacy Issues he was bold. And the watch & health kit, research kit is a bold and long term play. But in acquisitions (Siri, etc) they are either dropping balls or not being bold. Although I'm sure they have to maneuver the DOJ and not get sued for trying to monopolize. Either way, Cook strikes me as a Toyota driver, so to speak, where as—to continue the metaphor—Jobs parked his no-license-plate-having Benz in the handicap spots. Different personalities right there.
I believe its very, very innovative but I seem to have what I think is a higher (and not so humble) understanding of what innovation is. I'll put it this way: Innovation is what you do to increase utility to a previous product for a specific, target market.
So, in this case, Apple took the 13" MacBook Pro, or the 11" MacBook Air (take your pick) and increased the utility of the device for a new or unserved target market (executive-types, travelers, people who want a disposable second computer). If you're a gamer, or need 2 USB-A devices hanging from your laptop, or need high-CPU cycles that don't throttle, or a strong GPU set for OpenCL, then from your perspective Apple did not innovate for you when they released the 12" rMB. But again, for the traveler who just needs to access email attachments and spreadsheets and update that PowerPoint before the big board meeting, it's an innovation you've been waiting for because utility has increased for you.
I agree on the boldness sense, but Beats was a "synergy" play where they are leveraging new veteran employees, new knowledge resources, headphone and accessories brand, tech and manufacturing know-how, amazingly capable brand management, a turn-key streaming service, and marketing capability they would not have gotten with a Sennheiser acquisition or Spotify acquisition.
Keep in mind that Apple always releases "Good enough" that in time becomes dominant. This is early days for what will probably be Apple dominating music (not just digital retail, but marketing) all over again.
I would summarize the Beats acquisition as multiplying Apple's competitive advantage (branding, cultural dominance) over the next 10 years with this acquisition. $3B is a bargain from that perspective. Companies have acquired a lot more expensive companies and immediately squandered the opportunity (eg. HP buying Compaq, Ebay buying Skype). Apple buying Beats immediately payed off, with the world watching. And they just got started.
Sorry I misunderstood. Not gonna get mad at Tim for that one. Even $10B for a campus that will pay itself off over time isn't a big deal in my mind. They made $10B profit this quarter alone. But I'll give you the point since its certainly a $2B mistake.
I see your point. My thinking is that people were discovering Apple in the last 10 years. As they opened up stores in new cities, expanding, people were in there to experience Apple for the first time. We're jaded now. Everyone and their mom has iPhones and Mac laptops. We don't need to visit the store to experience the elusive Apple brand. That being said, around me the stores and packed on weekends and post-work hours. And after launches (iPhone) people are mobbing.
But I give you the point because owning an iPhone 6S isn't as novelty as it was owning the iPhone 1, 3G, or 4. When Apple Store arrived, it had 10 years to have the exclusive "magical" look and feel—both the actual store and the products inside. Last few years, it's been copied and we're used to it. I don't know that Angela Ahrendts has done a thing to the store design.
Meanwhile other companies have caught on to the importance of store design and in-store experience. Even Best Buy has transformed in the last 3 years and is actually a breath of fresh air now (comparatively). Apple no longer has exclusivity in those things (see Microsoft Store). It's just a different time now. Things have become normalized.
Again, agree with you on the topic of lack of boldness. So much is possible, so much isn't happening. But of what is possible, I don't know the legal ramifications of things, and the complexity and cultural class if they do something as insane as buying Akamai. I just don't know, so I'll give you the point, at the very least, because I would love to see Apple using their buying power more.
Overall, I disagree. I think Cook is smart as (pick a word) and prob puts 98% of possible CEOs to bed. Apple has so many interests and arms in so many insane industries, with so much on the line, not just operations and supply chain, but a global people, one that is becoming more jaded and high-expectation-having by the month. New generations being brainwashed by the YouTube videos (reaction videos! Unboxings! lets bend Aluminum phones!), this isn't the "what does Consumer Reports have to say about things?" world anymore that Jobs ruled over.
I don't know enough to say that Cook could do so much more for shareholders in the short term, but in the long term his job is to grow all those Octopus tentacles (Hail Hydra!) and not screw it up, like, I dunno, Carly Fiorina:
"The stock under Fiorina was a disaster — falling 65% from July 19, 1999, to Feb. 8, 2005." (source)
Tim Cook does not equal Carly Fiorina. But compared to Jobs, you're right, he's not as bold.
I'd give him credit so far—he hasn't screwed it up. He's compatible. And I'll remain optimistic that WWDC and new Mac updates are gonna start to help Apple feel right again.
[doublepost=1462506924][/doublepost]
From my limited understanding, Buybacks
- raise the price of shares
- is a great thing to combine with a dividend program, which Apple started doing
- is a tax-benefit because you're taxed less on earnings (capital gains rate) than that of the dividends
- is a great way to use cash that is extra and you have no immediate usage for
- shows that you are the best investment with that cash. It boosts confidence.
I also don't think that's an "artificial higher price" since it's fundamental market dynamics and it attracts more investors which increases the price.
Essentially, from my limited recall Carl Icahn put the pressure (or woo'd) Apple and Cook and got them to start these buyback and dividend programs. If you remember, beforehand, he kept complaining that Apple had too much cash on hand and that they should start. So they did. And investors flocked. And in around 2015 when prices where at an all time high, Icahn sold his Billions in shares (started to, or most of it, or all) because he knows what he's doing (made $2 Billion), and thats when it became bear and people started to sell. I'd say it was Icahn and the fact that iPhone 6S sales didn't meet investor expectations (but obviously the jump from 5S to large 6 phones would produce a spike in sales that you can't replicate with the S versions that don't change the outer design).
If anything I would say the price is artificially low and that now is a good time to buy if you can hold for 3+ years when Apple goes electric car.
Last edited:
Nylon straps! We'll include that in our March announcement! Come on Timmy.. you've already emptied Jobs pipeline and you have nothing left.
Mac Pro, not MBP. Clearly, I was writing about desktops.
[doublepost=1462738444][/doublepost]
You think that the CPU from 2011 is the same as the one in a late 2015 model...?!?
You think that the CPU from 2011 is the same as the one in a late 2015 model...?!?
Seriously, you really don't know how bad Apple has become?
My 2011 was the cheapest one available. It has a Sandy Bridge i5-2415M processor rated at 3279 passmarks.
The latest 2016 MB has a Skylake m3-6Y30 processor rated at 3059 passmarks.
Tim Cook deserves an enormous amount of credit for Apple generating the revenue and profit it has.
But.
He appears to be the ideal XO, or #2. He does not have the vision required to foster brand new product categories, like the iPod and iPhone. For a company that seems to pride itself on innovation, Apple is sorely lacking it.
The newest MBPs are the most recent case in point. Hugely overpriced for the performance they offer, they'll be cumbersome to use due to all the required adapters, but hey, they're thinner and lighter! As a company, Apple appears bereft of the vision and imagination it once showed.
But.
He appears to be the ideal XO, or #2. He does not have the vision required to foster brand new product categories, like the iPod and iPhone. For a company that seems to pride itself on innovation, Apple is sorely lacking it.
The newest MBPs are the most recent case in point. Hugely overpriced for the performance they offer, they'll be cumbersome to use due to all the required adapters, but hey, they're thinner and lighter! As a company, Apple appears bereft of the vision and imagination it once showed.