"Today I view Apple as a huge ship that lacks not only a rudder, but also the forward vision needed to set the direction of the rudder."
And who is "Paul McWilliams"? Did he ever had any vision of building any product and bring it to market? apart from talking ?
"Apple Inc.'s stock price declined nearly 10 percent in after hours trading Wednesday (Jan. 23) after the firm projected sales would decline by more than 20 percent sequentially in the current quarter."
Apple sales had always been cyclic with huge numbers in the holiday quarter and smaller numbers in the quarter after. Same happened last year!!
"Even so, sales were slightly below consensus analysts' expectations."
Have the analysts ever got it right? The analysts forgot to adjust the ,slope, of the linear interpolation curve, ie their main tool of prediction, properly. haha. In the last 10 Qs, the first 7 Qs, the slope was too low.. So Apple beat all their expectations. And the last 3 Qs, they overcorrected the slope and missed it again.
"To say that investors are idiots, really is an unfair dig at idiots."
You are wrong. Apple's current lines of products are nothing innovative about. On the other hand, there will be many fools on earth who are willing to pay Apple $1 but are happy to get only $0.6 worth of goods (relative to other device makers like Nokia and Samsung) cents in return.
W, Apple's ongoing success shows a huge population disagrees with you, that does not make them fools. The value of Apple's products is what people are willing to pay. There is more to great products than the BOM cost.
Please be reminded that the definition of fool is: willing to give up $1 for much less than $1 worth of goods. You are correct with "more to great products than the BOM cost". Quite often the "more" is psychological than something with substance. For instance, Hermes-brand carry-on is physically not strongly built but command 100x of the very robust one of Kirkland brand. In terms of technical specification, even iPhone5 is inferior to most of the followings: Xperia Z, Lumia 920, HTC Butterfly. Yet, in Q4 last year, 84% of the smartphones sold by AT&T are the iPhones, iPhones doubled its sales $ in China. By the definition, many, if not most, of the takers of iPhones in Q4CY2012 seem to fit the definition, don't they?
Yeah, a company equipped with its own compiler, operating system, tool chain, API framework, even programming languages and many other not-so-profitable developers teams, earns at least my respect, compared to other 'manufacturers'.
Respect should be earned based on the overall behavior but not just a narrow scope. By the criteria mentioned in your comment, a few other companies should earn more of your respect!
At the end of the day, ixxx are all commodities. In the history of mankind, when was the last time when commodities warrant followings that are so biased? I hope people get wise and follow the logics. After all, Apple is not Gucci, LV, nor Hermes!
so where are the analysts talking the stock to $1000. Apple have run the ideas well but they are lacking new ones at the end of the day they make a phone, a tablet, a music player and a pc, 4 products we all have. To buy you need incentive, thats whats lacking with the globel paralysis of no new must have. In electronics people are used to more for less every year which is why yo innovate and cost reduce, Last two years , Apple did neither
Those are the analysts who brought the world economy to its knee a few years ago. Don't worry, you will have them as companions for many years to come. People like the CEOs of BoA, JP Morgan Chase, City Group, Goldman Sachs will keep feeding on the middle class in USA until the once-great nation becomes a ruin, all under the umbrella of free economy or whatever sound grand!
Apple is surely a successful commercial establishment, but Apple is not a good citizen to the nation? Did they pay its tax in a faithful manner, given that it first championed the idea of tax harbor. Of the more than US$130b in the bank, what amount of tax has Apple paid? Apple has probably become the role model to most big corporations in US (and outside too) who want to avoid paying their due. Unlike Bill Gates, Apple and its top brass didn't really do much to help the needy and the poor. Making money and socially responsible should be what make a great company!
Please stop over-rate or over-hype what Apple can do to a television. The strength of Apple means that the competition are weak and not up to the task. I do believe that the world has changed, so are Apple's competitors. Consumers are typically blind-sighted and preferred to be led by hype and perception mostly.
Well put ... I'll admit Apple's marketing (propeganda?) machine has done them well over the years. The general public (aka the clueless) have fawned over the rhetoric that's spewed to them in a shiny & glossy wrapper. They blindly accept the doctrine as gospel and subsequently, likely believe that everything they read on the internet is true.
Streaming tv of any kind relies of people's ignorance to accept a poorer quality signal for the sake of convenience ... much like mp3s did for the audio industry. I'm not going to be jumping on that bandwagon anytime soon, but innovation is born out of convenience and the general population is inherently lazy as a whole.
Conclusion: I hate to admit it, but itv will likely take off
Another "bubble" bites the dust ??
Bubbles are inevitable when amateurs have access to day trading.
But even for them Apple's weaknesses ( total dependence on Suppliers / Competitors for critical components and technology, very little "secret sauce" that can't be replicated ) are finally sinking in.
To be able to get away with their high markup and maintain stock value, Apple needs totally new revolutionary products every 2 to 3 years.
Its been 3 years since the iPad.
I don't pretend to understand financial markets but it seems to me Apple stock at it's current PE (price to earnings) ratio of about 10, is a relative bargin to the PE ratio of the S&P 500 index, currently at well over 16. It would seem to be a buying opportunity. Especially when you consider Apple reportedly has over 100 billion dollars in cash sitting around.
I believe the cash number is $137B, which represents almost 1/3 of it's share price.
The last paragraph of the story is of course history, but a really remarkable history -- "Apple's quarterly revenue of $54.5 billion was up 41 percent from the previous quarter and up 18 percent from the year-ago quarter. Apple's net profit for the quarter was $13.1 billion, or $13.81 per share, up 60 percent from the previous quarter and roughly flat with the year-ago quarter."
The fearful are dumping their shares at a huge discount, on a stock that was arguably already under-valued. I am anxiously waiting for a local minimum...
Of course, Apple always exceeds their own guidance. The analysts are the people who were coming up with earnings expectations far above what Apple indicates.
So, I've never understood this: the company beats its guidance, but doesn't beat the random numbers pulled out of the analysts' asses, and then the stock price gets punished?
Wall Street analysts are idiots. But we already knew that.
The ipod was way ahead of it's times in the late 90s. Minimalistic design, futuristic materials. High Def screen.
Then in the 00's, we saw evolved products from this principle: ipad, iphone. With same basic design looks.
Now in the teen years, this design look is wearing old. There is no criticism or analysis to be made to Apple. They had their moment, and now the other companies are catching up.
As with all very large tech companies, the point has come to see Apple as more of a "value stock" than a "growth stock". No large company can maintain the kind of growth Apple has seen over the past several years. Apple will likely follow a trajectory similar to that of Microsoft. But that assesment was already "baked in" to the stock price even before the recent nosedive. Therefore, it seems to me, the market has over reacted and it has under valued Apple stock at this point. I don't know why the market seems to want to punish any company that starts to pay a dividend.
I would say the BOM argument is misdirected. The hardware, direct manufacturing labor, and development costs for Apple products are very considerable. Their innovation is legendary. While we consumers sometimes buy products for which the (discarded) packaging and advertising cost is probably comparable to the product cost, Apple products deliver a lot for the money.