Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Apple, Inc. Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Heywood40 who wrote (6532)	1/29/2016 11:29:41 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 11191

What is really hilarious is that you believe anything a confirmed and exposed liar Tim Cook says.... after all he had to lie to everyone all these years before he came out of the closet that his bizarro world is filled with lies... ROTFLMFAO... too funny...

To: Heywood40 who wrote (6532)	1/29/2016 11:31:57 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 11191

LMAO..Apple is the only big tech company complaining about the global economy 30 minutes ago finance.yahoo.com This week was huge for tech company earnings. Amazon, Facebook, and Apple all reported highly-anticipated quarterly results. The results were mixed, with both Apple and Amazon disappointing compared to expectations. Facebook, meanwhile, crushed estimates and its stock rocketed to an all-time. The most interesting part, however, wasn't just the numbers but what each companies' executives had to say on their respective earnings calls. Apple took the opportunity to highlight the weakness in the macroeconomic environment, saying this factor slowed sales of iPhones and other products enough to impact the bottom line. "Our results are particularly impressive, given the challenging global macroeconomic environment," said CEO Tim Cook. "We're seeing extreme conditions unlike anything we've experienced before just about everywhere we look." Since Apple was the first to report on Tuesday, both Amazon and Facebook's executive teams fielded questions on the macroeconomic outlook. And the response was a bit different. "Sure, Mark. Thanks for your questions. No macroeconomic comments. Again, we feel we're very encouraged by the customer response to our offerings in Q4," said Amazon's CFO Brian Olsavsky. And Facebook's CFO Dave Wehner had this to say We didn't see anything in Q4 that indicated broad-based macro weakness beyond of course the impact that FX was having." Apple is stuck in a vicious cycle abroad Apple is counting on foreign markets such as China and Brazil for its next big growth cycle while both countries are facing economic slowdowns. This presents a unique problem. As Business Insider's Jay Yarow said this week, as its iPhone sales decline Apple is trying to sell itself as a services business, making revenue off of apps installed on its devices. The problem is to get money from apps, people have to buy iPhones. And as the global economy slows down and the dollar impacts purchasing power in markets like Brazil, buying an iPhone becomes more expensive in exactly the markets that are supposed to drive sales growth. View gallery .Tim Cook (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images) Apple CEO Tim Cook. It doesn't look as bad for others Neither Facebook nor Amazon are as exposed to non-US markets as Apple, but it is interesting that their opinions differed so greatly. At Amazon, Olsavsky's brief comments are essentially the only mention of macro-trends, as much of the focus was on the company's attempts to build out a logistics and delivery network. Amazon's international sales increased by about $2 billion in 2015, with $1.3 billion of this increase coming in the fourth quarter. Additionally, Olsavsky said that international Amazon Prime subscriber increased by 51% and the company was "very pleased by the international growth." This is, however, a drop in the bucket for the company. About two-thirds of Apple's revenue, in contrast, comes from outside the US. The impact of foreign currencies against the dollar was also mentioned by Facebook, saying it dragged on revenue, though they had differing thoughts on the demand in the very markets that are killing Apple. "We're also pleased with the growth we're seeing in emerging markets and countries like China where businesses are advertising on Facebook and Instagram to reach people internationally," said Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. Of course, this is only one quarter's comments and it remains to be seen whether or not Apple's decline is the company attempting to cover for a bad quarter or whether it indicates weakening global demand that could be problem for tech companies and the economy at large. But right now, it looks like Apple's problem to solve.

To: Heywood40 who wrote (6532)	1/29/2016 11:37:52 AM
From: sylvester80	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11191

Market cap delta of Apple-Google is now only just 1.5%... Google reports Monday and could pass CRAPple as the most valuable company on planet earth... last time I wrote about this less than a month ago the delta was 10%.... how many years of dividends did you wasted in a month that the delta dropped from 10% down to 1.5%??? ROTFLMFAO... too funny...

To: Heywood40 who wrote (6532)	1/29/2016 11:57:42 AM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 11191

Apple, Cisco and IBM prove that stock buybacks are a sham Published: Jan 29, 2016 10:30 a.m. ET marketwatch.com ....................... Here’s why stock repurchases are good for nothing, and why companies like Apple AAPL, +1.71% Cisco CSCO, +1.64% and IBM IBM, +1.84% need to wake up and stop wasting their money on buyback boondoggles. Stock buybacks are often ill-timed Amusingly, corporations frequently embark on massive buyback schemes after they have seen big growth, not before. That means they are particularly susceptible to buying shares at a peak. And when you’re deploying billions of dollars, paying even just a 5% or 10% premium can add up to serious waste. A great example is Apple, which tried to appease Wall Street as its growth slowed in 2012 by announcing a stock-buyback plan. And it began that mission by spending almost $2 billion between Sept. 30 and Nov. 3, 2012, in the range of $80 to $90 a share (adjusted for splits). Apple then proceeded to crash to as low as the $50s in 2013, and didn’t reclaim the $90 mark until mid-2014. Now, the buyback bulls may assert that Apple wisely kept the pedal down across these lows to keep buying its shares at what is roughly half the current share price. However, that’s hardly a defense considering Apple’s stock has gone basically nowhere since the start of this aggressive buyback plan; the shares are falling close to $90, where Apple was after launching the scheme back in 2012. And by the way, that includes a $6 billion accelerated share repurchase in May 2015 at an average price of $124.24 — on top of $7 billion spent in the fiscal second quarter of 2015 for an average price of $124.11, and $4 billion spent in the fiscal third quarter of 2015 for an average price of $128.08! That’s a 30% premium from current prices that investors may not see again in 2016 after a rather ugly first-quarter earnings report. As Warren Buffett famously said in his 2012 letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders: “In repurchase decisions, price is all-important. Value is destroyed when purchases are made above intrinsic value.” Apple apparently hasn’t gotten that memo.

To: Heywood40 who wrote (6532)	1/29/2016 12:07:45 PM
From: sylvester80	Respond to of 11191

BREAKING...Samsung may have found a way to improve smartphone battery life 3-fold or more. Samsung Galaxy S7 could play 17 straight hours of video at max brightness phandroid.com Quentyn Kennemer Jan 29th, 2016 phandroid.com Samsung’s unpopular decision to get rid of the user-removable battery on the Samsung Galaxy S6would have been fine if battery life on their phones truly lasted all day. In truth, it’s just average, and only becomes slightly above so when you’re actively trying to mind your usage. But things could be drastically different with the Samsung Galaxy S7. Eldar Murtazin — a known name in the leaksphere — claims that a Galaxy S7 was able to play 17+ hours of video at full brightness. Consider the fact that it’s hard to even reach 5 hours of screen-on time for regular usage on the Samsung Galaxy S6 and other current devices, and you can imagine how insane that is. So, what miracle elixir has Samsung come up with for something like this to be possible? One might point to the 3,000mAh battery in the Galaxy S7 (and a 3,600mAh pack in the Galaxy S7 Edge), but a 450mAh bump over yesteryear’s model — while somewhat significant — shouldn’t be enough to provide such longevity. Is it software optimization? New battery tech? Are the 2nd-gen 14nm FinFET process in the chipsets they’ll use really that much more efficient than what was used in the Exynos 7420? It’s tough to say, but knowing Samsung they’ll have at least 1 groundbreaking innovation to introduce with the next round of flagships and we wouldn’t be surprised if they were the first to market with the next big battery breakthrough. Keep your fingers crossed that these claims are accurate.