Apple’s growth is not over, it won’t be the same as in the past but they can still grow.
Perhaps but we're at four years and counting with no growth, with iPhone demand and gross margins still not bottoming out yet.
Apple’s growth is not over, it won’t be the same as in the past but they can still grow.
Indeed. And I’m pretty certain it’s the overpriced derivative X iterations that drove people to hold on to their devices and curb demand –not the other way around.
Not sure if that really matters. Stock is on the way up, Wall st. doesn’t seem to care.Perhaps but we're at four years and counting with no growth, with iPhone demand and gross margins still not bottoming out yet.
Not sure if that really matters. Stock is on the way up, Wall st. doesn’t seem to care.
Compared to one year ago, AAPL is actually underperforming S&P by 1.5%. AAPL is up 4% but, apparently, this has little to do with Apple per se.Not sure if that really matters. Stock is on the way up, Wall st. doesn’t seem to care.
Yep, Apple stock marches to the tune of its own drum.Compared to one year ago, AAPL is actually underperforming S&P by 1.5%. AAPL is up 4% but, apparently, this has little to do with Apple per se.
Market cap hit $1T once and is now on its way up again. Apple stock seems to defy conventional wisdom.A stock can only go up for so long without a commensurate increase in real growth to support it. The market is always a game of confidence and musical chairs.
Yep, Apple stock marches to the tune of its own drum.
[doublepost=1564686745][/doublepost]
Market cap hit $1T once and is now on its way up again. Apple stock seems to defy conventional wisdom.
Yep, Apple stock marches to the tune of its own drum.
[doublepost=1564686745][/doublepost]
Market cap hit $1T once and is now on its way up again. Apple stock seems to defy conventional wisdom.
The bolded. Market isn’t always reflective of financial metrics and the interpretation metrics can be manipulated.What conventional wisdom does it defy? Valuation metrics placed on individual companies by the market varies all the time as companies go in and out of favor.
And they could change just as fast the other way.AAPL market cap is already at $949B. How quickly things change. One post on Twitter and billions are gone!
The bolded. Market isn’t always reflective of financial metrics and the interpretation metrics can be manipulated.
[doublepost=1564687453][/doublepost]
And they could change just as fast the other way.
AAPL market cap is already at $949B. How quickly things change. One post on Twitter and billions are gone!
I (generally) ignore him and a few others. During a time period where everyone got hit in the face, to acknowledge that Apple was the best at dodging most of the punches isn’t good enough. They want to pretend no blows landed.Here, have a refill of your Kool-Aid.
Apple plays the market analysts, as well as the faithful fanbois, incredibly well, don’t they.
The reality is that while the company continued to make money, it did so by raising prices, not selling more premium products —- and that is a metric that became a worrisome trend from 2 years ago.
Fortunately, it appears that Apple was able to remove the variable that was at the core of these negatives, and will hopefully pull themselves out, starting 2021.
I am actually quite hopeful, in a long time, since Jony Ive was let go, and a more competent person was placed in charge of products.
Financial metrics can be interpreted any way to form an opinion that could be seen as manipulation. See the various posts on this board for examples. And your of course correct on the collective of the market, it’s not predictable.The interpretation of metrics is done individually by market participants. There are analysts who generate and disseminate their own interpretations but ultimately a stock rises or falls by the collective interpretation of the market. The only way that can be manipulated is by the company itself in terms of its financial reporting but I don't see any evidence of Apple doing that.
No, they don't. You don't know the company at all, evidently.
Perhaps but we're at four years and counting with no growth, with iPhone demand and gross margins still not bottoming out yet.
Indeed. And I’m pretty certain it’s the overpriced derivative X iterations that drove people to hold on to their devices and curb demand –not the other way around.
I (generally) ignore him and a few others. During a time period where everyone got hit in the face, to acknowledge that Apple was the best at dodging most of the punches isn’t good enough. They want to pretend no blows landed.
Well this Apple fan is not missing the home button. And that if Apple did copy the gestures, it’s payback for android copying the notch.Yep, agreed - it’s a combination of ‘typical apple fanboi’(*) and ignorance of market forces. Like you, I have a bunch of them on ‘ignore’ (and add new ones after I reply to them).
(*) they are the kind that not only applaud Apple removing the Home Button, but declares now ‘hating’ to Home Button, while perfectly ignoring that the ‘new’ Home Gestures Apple has introduced as a result are identical to what Android has (which has managed to provide a virtual Home Button’).
Owners get to share in profits. Buy the stock if you want to o own some of the earnings.
Having every single shred of your privacy hoovered up by a company who's main business motivation is to sell that data? Hmm, let me think about that.
Targeted ads are their main business, based on what you do online.That statement should apply to Tim Cook as well.
Google's main business isn't selling user data.
That statement should apply to Tim Cook as well.
It’s telling when you have to resort to a strawman, instead of sticking to facts. I never called Ive incompetent - he’s a very capable industrial designer that was part of a well-functioning team that made Apple at the time. Jony Ive was good as long as he had someone like Steve saying “no” or “this is crap” or “start over”, ie Jony Ive (like almost all designers) is good as long as he was given guidance and direction. Once Steve died, that team died - and with it, the restraint and focus that Jony Ive needed.As far as Jony Ive departure, that incompetent helped make Apple what it is today. But no one is indespensable.
Google's main business isn't selling user data.
The word "incompetent" aside (which was used and I thought you were alluding to Jony Ive https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...he-notch-in-2019.2132842/page-3#post-27598541), the lack of seeing the bigger picture, has been, imo, an endemic here. Armchair CEOs and CFOs reign supreme and so far, most of them have gotten little right about apple.It’s telling when you have to resort to a strawman, instead of sticking to facts. I never called Ive incompetent - he’s a very capable industrial designer that was part of a well-functioning team that made Apple at the time. Jony Ive was good as long as he had someone like Steve saying “no” or “this is crap” or “start over”, ie Jony Ive (like almost all designers) is good as long as he was given guidance and direction. Once Steve died, that team died - and with it, the restraint and focus that Jony Ive needed.
If Steve Jobs we’re capable to come back from the dead, he would fire a number of people, Jony chief amongst them (and no, he wouldn’t fire Tim Cook).
Anyway, like I stated in an earlier reply, you’re probably not capable of seeing the bigger picture here, which is why you confirmed what I said about fanbois...