Apple Is 'Ungodly Well-Managed,' Billionaire Investor Says

[ValueArb]

Let me put it to you another way. Say he didn’t think that about their management(and anyone with a brain can see he’s laying it on pretty thick) and, while owning a crap ton of the company, does he come out and say “well it’s not ran very well”?



No way in hell. Hell, he could get in hot water for doing so.

That word, hesitant, is very telling…

Charlie can say almost anything he wants without getting in hot water. Berkshire doesn't run Apple, it is a minor shareholder in Apple at 5%, and Charlie isn't even a controlling shareholder of Berkshire. Berkshire has very little influence on Apple other than moral influence on Tim who respects WB and CM. Charlie could say they are terribly managed or the greatest managed and the SEC isn't giving a rip either way.

And Charlie has never been shy about disagreeing publicly with Warren on investments, most of Charlies time is spent on his own and DJCO investments. Warren makes all Berkshire investment decisions, excepting those he delegates to Todd Combs. Charlie is a billionaire, and doesn't give a rip what anyone else thinks, he speaks his mind always.

 

[ValueArb]

If you really think Tim Cook did this all himself then YOU'RE bananas!

This team of management at many levels and the hard working individuals was already in place before hey became CEO. In fact I'd say this is just evolutionary starting with the original board that Steve brought on when he returned. Without THAT any top level management decisions and guidance would not go forward.

The board isn't hiring Tim's subordinates, Tim is responsible for leading, motivating, replacing and hiring replacements. . It's been over a decade since Jobs left, and now there is very little left of the VP level staff that Steve Jobs put in place in 1998.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

There is zero evidence this ever happened, and lots of reasons to believe it never did.

Sure it is all made up.

Apple’s concessions in China reportedly include a secret $275 billion deal and one odd change in Maps

There have been more than a few over the years.

www.theverge.com

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Two days ago I posted on MR that Cook is the best CEO, and numerous people went bananas. I said it before, he's not a product visionary or genius, but he sent Apple into the stratosphere as a company.

On the log scale (which shows true growth, the linear chart distorts growth), it is plainly obvious that the Apple stock price grew markedly more under Steve Jobs, then under Tim Cook (see marked up chart below).

Also note that since 2015, the entire tech sector has been on the greatest bull run in history, with most big tech stocks multiplying their stock price by many times over this time (AMD x40, Amazon x10, Microsoft x7, Netflix x6.5, Apple 5.5x, Google 4.5x, Facebook 3x, Intel 2x). Apple hasn't even been close to the standout performer in this boom, the've been quite average at best. Even Microsoft has outperformed Apple.

Basically, all Tim Cook has done, is prevented or slowed, Apple from dying the death of a thousand cuts, without Steve's genius there to bring new revolutionary products, and to keep the quality control in check.

There have been many fundamental mistakes, of which the most glaring at the moment is the woeful software quality control across the entire board of products.

On the hardware side, the two fundamental products are the iPhone and the Mac. The iPhones have had incremental improvements, but they are basically just the same old iPhone, the genius creation of Steve, and even then, they've had to go back to the old iPhone 4 design in order to spruce it up, ffs.

On the Mac side, Cook initially reigned over the disastrous 2016-2020 debacle of MBP/MBA hardware failures, before finally redeeming himself by both: bringing the iPhone chips into the Macs, as was discussed and planned by Steve before he died; and listening to the customers after 4 years of a cacophony of complaints, but only after corporate and creative customers started to completely abandoned the platform in disgust. However, as much as the M1 Macs are finally high quality on the hardware side, the software is still woefully in decline, and shows no signs of improvement.

He has also brought in services, but it is nothing revolutionary, merely leveraging off Apple's already huge customer base, and even then, outperformed by companies such as Netflix and Amazon, as realistically, all he is doing is copying everyone else. He is never first to the party, but has the huge advantage of the Apple customer base and brand loyalty with which to win market share. Any fool could do it.

It is easy to look at the Apple stock chart in isolation (and on the linear scale), and be fooled into thinking that Steve Cook is the greatest CEO in history, but when you actually look at history (on the log scale), and also compare to the rest of the tech sector, it becomes obvious that he is merely a journey man, gifted with the genius legacy of Steve, and with the greatest sustained bull run in history of the stock market, especially in the tech sector.

On this chart (in log scale, as it should be), Steve Job's second stint at Apple is the red line, Tim Cooks reign is the blue line.

 

[ValueArb]

Sure it is all made up.

Apple’s concessions in China reportedly include a secret $275 billion deal and one odd change in Maps

There have been more than a few over the years.

www.theverge.com

Your own link doesn't even support your claim that "while paying off the CCP 275+ billion".

The link says Apple signed a memorandum to spend $275B over 5 years in china, on "investments, business deals, and training". Even if it was true, Apple already was spending tens of billions a year in China on assembly and parts, as well as the marketing, service and support needed to maintain its largest foreign market. Was there an agreement to spend an additional 20%, 10% or 5% a year? Maybe, but that's a tiny fraction of your claim and not a bribe or payoff of the CCP.

And again, there has never been any proof this took place, EVEN THOUGH Apple is required by law to document such agreements in it's financial reports.

 

[ValueArb]

On the log scale (which shows true growth, the linear chart distorts growth), it is plainly obvious that the Apple stock price grew markedly more under Steve Jobs, than under Tim Cook.

On this chart, Steve Job's second stint at Apple is the red line, Tim Cooks reign is the blue line.

View attachment 1960901

Growing a market cap from $10B to $350B is a higher multiple than growing from $350B to $3 Trillion, but its almost impossible to grow as fast when you are already one of the largest companies in the world.

And while Steve Jobs wasn't around for any of Tim Cook's trillions in increase, Tim Cook was around for almost all of Steve Jobs second stint, and an integral part of that success too.

 

[JimmyHook]

I enjoy watching people speculate about people they’ve never met. So odd

 

[Phil77354]

On the log scale (which shows true growth, the linear chart distorts growth), it is plainly obvious that the Apple stock price grew markedly more under Steve Jobs, than under Tim Cook.

On this chart, Steve Job's second stint at Apple is the red line, Tim Cooks reign is the blue line.

View attachment 1960901

That is a very interesting view of Apple stock growth over the past 25 years. But I wouldn't say that the growth under Job's was markedly more than Cook, they were very similar. We could also make all kinds of arguments about how Jobs did begin the period of really revolutionary devices which would be expected to create terrific growth. That Cook could maintain a very similar growth with a company that had already been so innovative is itself very impressive.

 

[JimmyHook]

Anyone trying to link Apple and the CCP can take a hike, because EVERY tech company does business, in some fashion, with China.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

In before the anti-Tim posts riddle this thread useless.

The egos here will never be able to admit a simple fact: Tim has done an amazing job growing one of the most successful businesses on the planet. And it was made that much more challenging following such an industry icon as Steve. But remember, Steve wasn’t looking for another Steve. He knew Apple needed more when he hand-picked Tim. And it’s clear, Steve was right.

You’d think as much as some applaud every decision Steve made that they would have been more welcoming and supportive of Tim. The anti-Tim sentiment is so bizarre.

Anyway, despite popular opinion here, from my perspective, Tim deserves a lot of credit for where Apple sits today.

For two reasons.

The Apple stock price, in this greatest bull run in history, has been outperformed by many other tech giants, such as AMD, Amazon, and Microsoft. It isn't the worst, but it is merely average in the sector.

Tim has compromised many of our dearly loved products, partly with woeful software quality control, and partly with short term greed induced hardware decisions, for example, removing the jack in order to sell expensive wireless headphones.

That, my friend, is why many of us Apple fans shake our heads in disdain for Tim Cook. He's a journey man at best.

PS - if you really want to see stock price growth, you need to look at the charts in log scale, not linear scale. As linear distorts the growth to make it appear like the most recent growth is the most impressive. Eg, if a stock goes from $50 to $100 in a year, then it has doubled your investment. If it goes from $100 to $200 in a year, it has also doubled your investment. The growth rate is exactly identical. On the log scale, this will show correctly. On the linear scale, it will show as an exponential growth that makes it appear as if the second year was twice as successful as the first year, even though both years are actually equally successful. On the log scale, it actually becomes clear that growth was higher under Steve, than under Tim.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

What I like to say about Tim and his influence on Apple is this:

Using a Mac used to feel like you were floating above the crap pile that is using technology (my objective view is that technology doesn't really make our lives better, it makes people money).

Tim Cook realized they could make a lot more money if they brought the quality down to the point where the Mac experience SITS at the top of the crap pile.

So it stinks more, but it's still the best choice.

The result: Way more profit.

I accept this, not because I like it, but because I have no choice.

Using Macs always felt that way. That's all Steve's genius. He designed and set the standard for brilliant Apple hardware that works better than the rest. And he brought in the NeXTSTEP OS (based on unix), which is the brilliant base for all of the Apple OS's. Those two things are what gives Apple products the feeling you experience. However, the software quality control under Tim has woefully declined, and shows no signs of halting. The hardware is currently great again, thankfully, after the 2016-2020 Mac debacles, but only because corporate and creatives started to abandon the platform, forcing Tim to finally listen to all the complaints. The feeling you experience is not because of Tim, it is in spite of his blunderous mistakes.

 

[I7guy]

For two reasons.

The Apple stock price, in this greatest bull run in history, has been outperformed by many other tech giants, such as AMD, Amazon, and Microsoft. It isn't the worst, but it is merely average in the sector.

I don’t care what Amazon did, I care what apple brought to my portfolio.

Tim has compromised many of our dearly loved products, partly with woeful software quality control, and partly with short term greed induced hardware decisions, for example, removing the jack in order to sell expensive wireless headphones.

Brilliant strategy. And for strategies like this he is being paid $99m. Additionally I know every product under Steve Jobs was perfect. /s

That, my friend, is why many of us Apple fans shake our heads in disdain for Tim Cook. He's a journey man at best.

And many give Tom Cook the thumbs up. Different strokes for different folks.

PS - if you really want to see stock price growth, you need to look at the charts in log scale, not linear scale. As linear distorts the growth to make it appear like the most recent growth is the most impressive. Eg, if a stock goes from $50 to $100 in a year, then it has doubled your investment. If it goes from $100 to $200 in a year, it has also doubled your investment. The growth rate is exactly identical.

I don’t care about the rate. I care about the tax basis of my stock which translates into gain when I sell.

On the log scale, this will show correctly. On the linear scale, it will show as an exponential growth that makes it appear as if the second year was twice as successful as the first year, even though both years are actually equally successful. On the log scale, it actually becomes clear that growth was higher under Steve, than under Tim.

Discussed above.

Hope this helps to project an alternative view.

 

[Madhatter32]

…I’m assuming that comment is satirical because otherwise it’s just asinine. That is exactly how investing works for a lot of people. I mean really, did you just say that? Remember selling your first car to someone else? Did you emphasis the bad or play up the good?

This is as no brainer concept and it’s being defended in the name of petty fandom. Pure and simple.

Oh and I’ll point out, even though I shouldn’t have to, that they DIDN‘T buy it at that valuation. It’s now at that valuation(or whatever it‘s at, I don’t know)hence why you’d protect it and grow it with many tactics including shining up a turd for lack of a better phrase. Not saying it’s a turd mind you…

Seriously? This is so far off the mark. Sign of the times, I guess, that you actually think that due diligence in not part of the investment process. It's quite a sad commentary actually.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I like Apple as a company less and less every year.

Tim is simply fantastic as his job. He has used his talents as a master of supply chain management, combined with the financial might of Apple to control price and flow of technology to Apple when Apple needs it and at a price Apple dictates for the most part. If they cant, then they just buy out some company and control it that way. This has made Apple a money printing machine under Tim Cook. No wonder shareholders like Berkshire Hathaway love Apple.

At the same time has successfully sold the privacy myth to Apple fans, while paying off the CCP 275+ billion to gain access to those markets because of the tremendous profit possibilities no matter the privacy consequences of those whom Apple will profit off of. (This is Tim killing baby pandas). He has successfully gotten blood from a rock. Again shareholders love him and Apple under him.

You summed up the whole of my feelings as well.

Apple is a money printing behemoth thanks to Tim

But it's also becoming a less and less appealing company in many other areas

 

[Karma*Police]

Tim is a visionary. Getting apple to where it is today in 11 years was no small feat.

He gave the people what they want. (And unlike the poster above who claims to use apple because it’s the best of the worst)

I honestly can’t think of one thing Tim Cook did that was visionary. Tim is a bean counter (a very good one at that) who took Steve’s visionary ideas and basically didn’t F things up too badly.

In fact, I’m surprised Apple accomplished so little considering they had an indomitable lead in digital music, AI, digital video, chip design, tablets, smartphone camera technology, and smartphones when Steve was still CEO. Not to mention, more cash than most countries.

Contrast Apple’s contributions to the world in the past 11 years with Elon Musk’s.

 

[I7guy]

I honestly can’t think of one thing Tim Cook did that was visionary. Tim is a bean counter (a very good one at that) who took Steve’s visionary ideas and basically didn’t F things up too badly.

In fact, I’m surprised Apple accomplished so little considering they had an indomitable lead in digital music, AI, digital video, chip design, tablets, smartphone camera technology, and smartphones when Steve was still CEO. Not to mention, more cash than most countries.

Contrast Apple’s contributions to the world in the past 11 years with Elon Musk’s.

There lists of things floating around this thread. You can pick your favorite. Now what did Elon musk do? Reinvent the electric car that was invented by Porsche in 1904?

See, it’s easy on an online forum to downplay outstanding achievements.

Let the records speak for themselves and everybody judge them as they see fit.

 

[lovehateapple]

At least some of Apple's success in the past decade has been thanks to the Federal Reserve blowing a massive asset price bubble in momentum stocks. Additionally, in the same timeframe Apple issued bonds to buy back shares, which artificially boosted share value. I'm not saying the company isn't well managed or that the Fed is entirely responsible for the company's stock price, just that Fed policy has "helped" certain stocks at the expense of the real economy.

 

[Luposian]

That is a very interesting view of Apple stock growth over the past 25 years. But I wouldn't say that the growth under Job's was markedly more than Cook, they were very similar. We could also make all kinds of arguments about how Jobs did begin the period of really revolutionary devices which would be expected to create terrific growth. That Cook could maintain a very similar growth with a company that had already been so innovative is itself very impressive.

In looking at the chart, there is less stock "loss" (the drops are nowhere near as deep) in Tim's tenure than in Steve's. That's gotta count for something. I may not approve of Tim's lifestyle, but he brought back the (true) Mac. No more of that silly "I'm a PC running MacOS X/macOS" business. We get to relive the PowerPC glory days (601->G5) in a new way! *squeeeeee!* ?

 

[Madhatter32]

At least some of Apple's success in the past decade has been thanks to the Federal Reserve blowing a massive asset price bubble in momentum stocks. Additionally, in the same timeframe Apple issued bonds to buy back shares, which artificially boosted share value. I'm not saying the company isn't well managed or that the Fed is entirely responsible for the company's stock price, just that Fed policy has "helped" certain stocks at the expense of the real economy.

Companies that have relied upon debt financing for growth -- say Tesla -- are the primary beneficiaries of what you say as they would not exist otherwise. Apple's share growth has certainly benefited from such largesse but it is (and would have been) a capital/wealth creating machine regardless.

 

[Madhatter32]

I honestly can’t think of one thing Tim Cook did that was visionary. Tim is a bean counter (a very good one at that) who took Steve’s visionary ideas and basically didn’t F things up too badly.

In fact, I’m surprised Apple accomplished so little considering they had an indomitable lead in digital music, AI, digital video, chip design, tablets, smartphone camera technology, and smartphones when Steve was still CEO. Not to mention, more cash than most countries.

Contrast Apple’s contributions to the world in the past 11 years with Elon Musk’s.

Elon Musk is a joke. Jeff Bezos has created something of lasting value and is a person to hold up as a visionary in the same vane as Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is not the same as these people but he has been an extremely effective manager and CEO -- which is also quite a rare thing to find. He has made an extraordinary contribution to the company.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Anyone trying to link Apple and the CCP can take a hike, because EVERY tech company does business, in some fashion, with China.

Google does not bend over to them.

 

[Abazigal]

I honestly can’t think of one thing Tim Cook did that was visionary. Tim is a bean counter (a very good one at that) who took Steve’s visionary ideas and basically didn’t F things up too badly.

In fact, I’m surprised Apple accomplished so little considering they had an indomitable lead in digital music, AI, digital video, chip design, tablets, smartphone camera technology, and smartphones when Steve was still CEO. Not to mention, more cash than most countries.

Contrast Apple’s contributions to the world in the past 11 years with Elon Musk’s.

What I liked about Apple’s strategy post-Jobs was their decision to double down on the Apple ecosystem. Which I think is an accomplishment that is vastly underrated.

Tim Cook knew that they had a huge iphone install base, and so went on to build a formidable ecosystem around it, which would in turn increase its stickiness and make people less likely to switch away from the iphone. And the deeper you sink into the walled garden, the more apple products you are likely to buy (because they all work so well together), further improving Apple’s profitability.

At the same time, Apple knew that users were holding on to iPhones longer, and pivoted accordingly. I remember when people were claiming that Apple was doomed due to slowing iPhone sales, not realising that the iPhone user base continued to grow by way of the refurbished iPhone market. It’s a hilariously short-sighted take that never fails to elicit a chuckle every time I think about it.

It’s the reason why Apple is worth 3 trillion today, and Apple is only just getting started (when you realise that the majority of iphone users still only own an iphone as their sole apple product, meaning there’s still a huge user base to market additonal accessories and services to).

This is likely Tim Cook’s biggest legacy. Not any one defining product, but a cohesive ecosystem that offers an integrated experience which no other competitor can hope to match.

That’s why I am an Apple user, and why I see myself continuing to stay one for the near foreseeable future.

Viva la Apple.

 

[Karma*Police]

There lists of things floating around this thread. You can pick your favorite. Now what did Elon musk do? Reinvent the electric car that was invented by Porsche in 1904?

Riiight, because EV’s were so common before Tesla. By your logic, Apple did nothing revolutionary.

All you had to do was list one single thing that Tim did that was revolutionary to prove me wrong… I’m still waiting.

As for Elon, oh, I don’t know, inventing a rocket that can be reused for space travel seems pretty revolutionary. A private company transporting things to the space station for the first time seems pretty revolutionary. Upending the entire auto industry with EV’s and strategically placed superchargers seems pretty revolutionary. Starlink, Hyperloop, Tesla humanoid robots, and Neuralink, should any of those endeavors prove successful, will be considered pretty revolutionary.

 

[Karma*Police]

Elon Musk is a joke. Jeff Bezos has created something of lasting value and is a person to hold up as a visionary in the same vane as Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is not the same as these people but he has been an extremely effective manager and CEO -- which is also quite a rare thing to find. He has made an extraordinary contribution to the company.

I agree SJ and Bezos are both visionaries. Elon Musk is a joke?? I’m guessing it’s because you’re an ideologue who doesn’t agree with his politics, but please explain.

 

[I7guy]

Riiight, because EV’s were so common before Tesla. By your logic, Apple did nothing revolutionary.

All you had to do was list one single thing that Tim did that was revolutionary to prove me wrong… I’m still waiting.

As for Elon, oh, I don’t know, inventing a rocket that can be reused for space travel seems pretty revolutionary. A private company transporting things to the space station for the first time seems pretty revolutionary. Upending the entire auto industry with EV’s and strategically placed superchargers seems pretty revolutionary. Starlink, Hyperloop, Tesla humanoid robots, and Neuralink, should any of those endeavors prove successful, will be considered pretty revolutionary.

By that logic, Jobs did nothing revolutionary either. The iphone was just a popular cell phone. The point is anyone, in an online forum can diminish anything. The charging stations are just another form of an outside plug. Different types of automation that built on the foundation of Ford...The logic is many of these innovations were based on prior inventions, so it's a chicken and egg type of logic here if that's the way one wants to debate.

And yes, Apple invented a category of wearables, redefined the computer with it's M1 chip plus other items under Cook.