Jump to content

AAPL - Apple Inc.


indirect

Recommended Posts

Really?? After all this you still don't know where you've been led to??? :o

 

Please enlighten me.  A straight answer would be welcome at this (or any other) stage.  I don't see how it's so hard to answer my very simple question.  Instead you just seem to want to fuck around with argument whack-a-mole.  Which is fine, but speaks volumes about what you're looking to accomplish with your time (and mine).

 

Before you get too worked up, just take a look at valueInv's link at the bottom of each post.

http://farley.tumblr.com/post/35132645118/the-apple-haters-7-stages-of-grief

and the main page here:

http://farley.tumblr.com

 

The first, titled "The Apple Haters’ 7 Stages of Grief" reads like the anthem of an apple fan boy.  The rest is called "Stream of Superior Consciousness", which might imply where he lands on the humility spectrum.  There are pictures of apple store visits etc.  His posts are almost completely pro apple, anti google, or anyone else competing with Apple (not always, but mostly).  Sometimes with reasonable arguments, sometimes not, but rarely if ever with a balanced counter argument as to why he might be wrong about Apple.  I've personally found the never ending, table banging, pro Apple banter, rather tiring to read, so I've stopped reading most of his posts.  The signal to noise ratio is just too low, and this is from a guy who is intimately familiar with Apple for several reasons, and actually has a reasonably large call LEAP position on the stock.

 

Don't get yourself worked up about it.  Either of you.  It's not worth it.

 

Here's an exercise for you valueInv, assuming you're still reading, and not incensed that I looked at the link you advertise and rendered a fairly obvious but perhaps unflattering opinion (let me balance that, by saying I do think you're smart, just rather biased): how about you come up with a bearish argument for Apple, and post that.  I think it will do you good.  Also come up with a bull argument for Google and post that.  If you only argue the positives in your favorite company and the negatives in its competition, you will miss something, guaranteed.

 

I really dislike posting something calling out a poster, but this has been going on for a long time, to the point that this thread has become borderline useless to me, and it didn't used to be that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

2012:  A single model Samsung Galaxy SIII outsells all iPhone models by a 3 to 2 margin....

 

Are we just making stuff up now?

 

Sorry, the reference was in the post (Wikipedia).  But I didn't go to the underlying sources, because it wasn't worth the effort.  I know that technology changes and it's obvious to me that is true, so I don't spend a lot of time on this.  But nevertheless, it was an error on my part.  Sorry.

 

So, real stat is all Samsung smartphones outselling Apple smartphones by more than a 3 to 2 margin in 2012, not just the SIII.  Sorry I got it wrong:

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/25/global-mobile-phone-shipments-2012/

 

That said, it's fine if you think innovation has finally stopped, or that all innovation will belong to Apple.  And also fine to believe that Apple being outsold 3 to 2 by another company doesn't actually matter, that Apple is the preeminent company in the industry (though it isn't actually selling as much as everyone else), and that in the consumer electronics space, market share has nothing to do with moats.  As bargainman said, there's been enough evidence to draw conclusions either way, and that we draw different conclusions is fine.

 

(Despite all that, I think Apple is cheap.  I just believe there is ample evidence that their moat is surmountable, and in fact being surmounted.  That doesn't mean that the stock isn't cheap though.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

Please enlighten me.  A straight answer would be welcome at this (or any other) stage.  I don't see how it's so hard to answer my very simple question.  Instead you just seem to want to fuck around with argument whack-a-mole.  Which is fine, but speaks volumes about what you're looking to accomplish with your time (and mine).

 

So the question again is:

Do you think that the smartphone industry is commoditized, and you're excited because Apple can still be a product leader and highly profitable?

 

And if you're still up for answering another basic question, then you can answer another one that I have been asking and can't get any answer on (even a sarcastic one!):

 

What is the feature (or features) that differentiate the iPhone from any other handset?

 

I've left you enough breadcrumbs in the conversation. All you need to do is connect the dots. I'll give you a start:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-High-Technology-William-Davidow/dp/002907990X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362728937&sr=1-1&keywords=high+tech+marketing

 

It was written 27 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

Really?? After all this you still don't know where you've been led to??? :o

 

Please enlighten me.  A straight answer would be welcome at this (or any other) stage.  I don't see how it's so hard to answer my very simple question.  Instead you just seem to want to fuck around with argument whack-a-mole.  Which is fine, but speaks volumes about what you're looking to accomplish with your time (and mine).

 

Before you get too worked up, just take a look at valueInv's link at the bottom of each post.

http://farley.tumblr.com/post/35132645118/the-apple-haters-7-stages-of-grief

and the main page here:

http://farley.tumblr.com

 

The first, titled "The Apple Haters’ 7 Stages of Grief" reads like the anthem of an apple fan boy.  The rest is called "Stream of Superior Consciousness", which might imply where he lands on the humility spectrum.  There are pictures of apple store visits etc.  His posts are almost completely pro apple, anti google, or anyone else competing with Apple (not always, but mostly).  Sometimes with reasonable arguments, sometimes not, but rarely if ever with a balanced counter argument as to why he might be wrong about Apple.  I've personally found the never ending, table banging, pro Apple banter, rather tiring to read, so I've stopped reading most of his posts.  The signal to noise ratio is just too low, and this is from a guy who is intimately familiar with Apple for several reasons, and actually has a reasonably large call LEAP position on the stock.

 

Don't get yourself worked up about it.  Either of you.  It's not worth it.

 

Here's an exercise for you valueInv, assuming you're still reading, and not incensed that I looked at the link you advertise and rendered a fairly obvious but perhaps unflattering opinion (let me balance that, by saying I do think you're smart, just rather biased): how about you come up with a bearish argument for Apple, and post that.  I think it will do you good.  Also come up with a bull argument for Google and post that.  If you only argue the positives in your favorite company and the negatives in its competition, you will miss something, guaranteed.

 

I really dislike posting something calling out a poster, but this has been going on for a long time, to the point that this thread has become borderline useless to me, and it didn't used to be that way.

Firstly, I posted the link because it is the exact behavior I have noticed in my 12 years of holding Apple. I really don't care who posted it. What I do care about is that it summarizes real world behavior. If you have the ability, evaluate the piece of information directly, not just the source. If a person is biased, it doesn't mean that all information they have is wrong.

 

Now, I am not going to post an Apple bear case nor a Google bull case because I am neither. However, I have posted risks and threats to Apple a couple of times on this thread. I've also posted what Apple needs to do. And I am happy to see them beginning to do just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

 

I am not making any assumptions, I am just trying provide a counter point or alternative view. The alternative view being that because one tier of consumers behaves a certain way it does not mean that other tiers will behave the same way. Especially if the lower price competitors react by lowering their prices even further. As I mentioned in my previous post I understand the ecosystem may prevent that from happening. My initial gut feeling is that the price sensitive consumers will not care much about ecosystem. But I guess we will see.

I agree with the above post completely. Now were are talking about market segmentation. Something that the commoditization mental model does not take into account.

 

Further, compoundinglife, you are from the tech industry. You know that the most commonly used model in the industry is Clayton Christensen's disruptive innovation model. Apply that model here and you will see some of that beginning to happen.

 

There is a reason why the disruptive innovation model  vs commoditization. Commoditization fits better for static products like oil or potatoes. However, Innovation occurs constantly and quickly in tech making it dynamic. It has hard to make products fungible when they are constantly changing. It is also hard to make them fungible when they are incredibly complex.

 

I know this because one of the startups I worked at was trying to commoditize bandwidth. Is a simple thing like bandwidth fungible, right? After all what's the difference between 100 Mbps from ATT vs 100 mbps from Verizon? Think about it let me know. Are they fungible or not? Can they be traded in an exchange like stocks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please enlighten me.  A straight answer would be welcome at this (or any other) stage.  I don't see how it's so hard to answer my very simple question.  Instead you just seem to want to fuck around with argument whack-a-mole.  Which is fine, but speaks volumes about what you're looking to accomplish with your time (and mine).

 

So the question again is:

Do you think that the smartphone industry is commoditized, and you're excited because Apple can still be a product leader and highly profitable?

 

And if you're still up for answering another basic question, then you can answer another one that I have been asking and can't get any answer on (even a sarcastic one!):

 

What is the feature (or features) that differentiate the iPhone from any other handset?

 

I've left you enough breadcrumbs in the conversation. All you need to do is connect the dots. I'll give you a start:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-High-Technology-William-Davidow/dp/002907990X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1362728937&sr=1-1&keywords=high+tech+marketing

 

It was written 27 years ago.

 

Surprise, surprise.  Once again, no straight answer.  Just more evasion.

 

I'm not a fan of calling people out, either, but I'm doing it today:

 

You are a coward.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

You are a coward.

Now that is a complement for a contrarian.

You sir, make me blush.

 

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys

 

I don't post much, I got newbie status but I thoroughly enjoy this board and the generally high-quality discussion that unfolds in most threads.

 

I am an Apple user (after long being dismissive of them) but I've also long given up on trying to argue with anyone about advantages/disadvantages - just not worth the time. Each to their own and to each their own poison.

 

I do keep an eye on this thread because I also own some Apple shares but, you know, looking at the last few pages I'd say they may as well get deleted and the board/thread would be none the poorer for it.

 

Perhaps it's time for you guys to step back and seriously think about whether you're arguing because you're trying to be constructive or because you feel emotionally attached and want to defend your position and thereby prove the other person wrong.

 

... just a thought.

 

C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest valueInv

Guys

 

I don't post much, I got newbie status but I thoroughly enjoy this board and the generally high-quality discussion that unfolds in most threads.

 

I am an Apple user (after long being dismissive of them) but I've also long given up on trying to argue with anyone about advantages/disadvantages - just not worth the time. Each to their own and to each their own poison.

 

I do keep an eye on this thread because I also own some Apple shares but, you know, looking at the last few pages I'd say they may as well get deleted and the board/thread would be none the poorer for it.

 

Perhaps it's time for you guys to step back and seriously think about whether you're arguing because you're trying to be constructive or because you feel emotionally attached and want to defend your position and thereby prove the other person wrong.

 

... just a thought.

 

C.

Clearly, the numbers point to very attractive valuation for Apple. Assume that Apple continues as is with existing margins, nominal growth and the shares are very attractive. Assume that there will be commoditization and margin compression and it is a lousy investment. The fundamental difference between the bulls and the bears rests on that assumption. So if you wanted to evaluate Apple, wouldn't you want to evaluate that assumption? That is why I started the conversation on commoditization.

 

I think the discussions are inconclusive because investors look at consumer tech companies like a black box. If you are not willing to open the box and look inside, you can argue for eternity as to whats inside and get nowhere.

 

It is difficult to understand what drives the business, where the moat is, what drives customer behavior, etc. For a company like Coke it is easy to attribute its success and margins to brand, distribution and club the rest on "economies of scale". Its a simple product. But what about Apple? Its complex, secretive and most importantly, its contrarian. They do all the things that is considered bad business practice but have succeeded like no other company. That is why I loved the bumblebee analogy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

valueInv, Apple is not such a hard company to understand today - they are a dominant tech company and enough has been written about them that an investor can get a good handle on their business in a reasonable amount of time. What has happened to the stock the past year is also not hard to understand - greed has been replaced with fear. This happens all the time... FFH was trading at $330 a couple of months ago and now it is trading at $390... nothing really changed in their business during this time only what investors were willing to pay.

 

It is good to spend time understanding Apple's business, including both the risks and opportunities. If your analysis leads you to the view that innovation is dead at Apple then, yes, it would likely be a poor purchase at current levels. If you believe innovation is alive and well at Apple then the stock is likely a great buy at current levels. No amount of analysis will answer this question conclusively - only time will answer this question. And the answer will likely be somewhere in between the two extremes (more innovation is coming, just likely not of the ipod/iphone/ipad impact) which is why I like the stock at current levels.

 

The same can be said of commoditization - if it happens fast, stay away from Apple; if it happens slowly, Apple is cheap. The answer is likely somewhere in the middle and we will only KNOW in 5 or 10 year. I do expect some commodotization to happen, just not in the next year or two (or three... and after that who the hell really knows????).

 

Part of the thesis on Apple is rests along the lines of 'do you trust management' (and this is the same for pretty much all investments). For example: insurance (do we really know what future liabilities will total), banking (talk about black box) etc.

 

Regarding business practices, yes, Apple is different but I would not say they are 'bad'.

 

Very, very few companies can have their earnings accurately projected 5 or 10 years into the future.

 

Given current prices, some like what they see and others do not. Difference of opinion is a great thing and is what makes markets. Because others do not interpret the data the same way does not mean they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My dad was an early adopter of Apple products, starting with the first Macs, due to his job, moving on to an iPhone was only natural.  He just told me he switched to S3, the change was recommended by two people close to him who have done the same, giving up the iPhone for an S3.  The first reaction seem to be confusion about what is where yet in the end they all really seem to like it.  If my dad after all these years, at his age, abandons his dear brand ... technology "moats" sure suck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

My dad was an early adopter of Apple products, starting with the first Macs, due to his job, moving on to an iPhone was only natural.  He just told me he switched to S3, the change was recommended by two people close to him who have done the same, giving up the iPhone for an S3.  The first reaction seem to be confusion about what is where yet in the end they all really seem to like it.  If my dad after all these years, at his age, abandons his dear brand ... technology "moats" sure suck.

 

Some customers are stickier than others.

 

Is it fair to assume that he hadn't bought many apps and iTunes songs? I think owned content has a strong correlation with stickiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to news, Bill Miller was largely responsible for jump in AAPL 2015 $500 LEAPS today:

 

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2013/03/15/aapl-rising-despite-ubs-sterne-agee-target-cuts/?source=email_rt_mc_body

 

The AAPL 2015 LEAPs, the $500s, trade at about $40 bucks. If Apple goes back to where it was six months ago, that’s four to five times your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep that article is hilarious. If you look back at Apple's price over the past 10 years, at pretty much every point in time, it's looked really "expensive", based on metrics like P/E, and going by the "buy firms at cheap prices" philosophy would have totally missed out great firms like this.

 

Moral of the story *for me* at least - can't ignore high PE firms just because they are expensive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral of the story *for me* at least - can't ignore high PE firms just because they are expensive...

 

Well you can, you'll just miss some great opportunities. It is far more difficult to accurately estimate the intrinsic value of a "growth" stock, however, and therefore I do ignore these stocks.

 

At the moment the situation is however different. The current valuation is cheap if they are able to maintain (not grow) the FCF of 2012. However there is very little (none) history for these FCF levels. In 2009 FCF wasn't even 9B$.... For me the price needs to go lower still for a sufficient MoS because for me this is very uncertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...