3 ms·

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think that Apple is failing as a company. We haven't even heard sales numbers about Verizon iPhone yet! And the GSM iP

by Zev 16y ago

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think that Apple is failing as a company. We haven't even heard sales numbers about Verizon iPhone yet! And the GSM iPhone 4 has (and continues) to sell pretty damn well, even after antennagate. I think its absurd to say that the iPhone 4 is a bad product for Apple to have made. Likewise, the Mac App Store is just getting started. Wait until after 10.7 has shipped by default and everyone has it to call it a failure. Whats the difference between 30 billion cash on hand and 60 billion? I don't feel like there is very much; and it doesn't seem to be have been a terribly big deal in the past year or so.

brudgers 16y ago
Having $60 billion in cash appears to be symptomatic of a lack of strategy on the part of management. It's money that isn't being put to work to create value for the stockholders nor is it being paid as a dividend. That raises the question of for whose benefit is that money being held? I do not "think that Apple is failing as a company." However, they are in fear of losing their halo and the $60 billion dollars signifies inertia based on that fear. Here's the dilemma - purchasing a $20 billion dollar company with another $20 billion in unrealized value probably means the acquisition target is perceived as troubled. Getting involved in that kind of mess doesn't damage companies such as HP, the perception is that they are used to dealing with messy management issues. But it is easy to see Apple's halo easily tarnished by a pursuit of a company like Yahoo! or Foxconn. And even after spending $20 billion Apple would still be under dividend pressure. As for the Mac App Store, I did not "call it a failure" either. I pointed out that Mac Apps was a lackluster announcement - calling it the highlight of Back to the Mac is faint praise for anyone but the faithful. Apple boosted Mac sales by requiring a Mac for iPhone development, but with the growth of other mobile platforms, Mac sales are bound to slow. The Mac App store is a rearguard action and although a sound business decision because it's so cheap to implement, is clearly uninspired.
- Zev 16y ago
  You haven't answered my question. How is 30 billion different from 60 billion? Why would investors be okay with 30 billion cash in hand but not 60 billion? Whats the magic threshold? 31 billion? From the Back to the Mac event, Apple sold 13.7 million Mac's in 2010 fiscal year, for a 27% growth year-over-year . In comparison, there are "only" 600,000 iOS developers. I don't think its accurate to write off the Mac's resurgence as "Oh, people want to make iOS apps, nothing more." http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/20/apple-mac-numbers/ http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/20/apple-mac-numbers/
  - brudgers 16y ago
    In a sense you're right, 30 and 60 billion represent the same thing - an inability to act by Apple management. On the other hand, when Apple had 30 billion one would ask "Don't they have a plan?" When they hit 60 the question becomes "WTF are they waiting for?" Tangent: every Mac developer isn't a one person shop. Question: WTF are they waiting for?

by Zev 16y ago

brudgers 16y ago

Having $60 billion in cash appears to be symptomatic of a lack of strategy on the part of management. It's money that isn't being put to work to create value for the stockholders nor is it being paid as a dividend. That raises the question of for whose benefit is that money being held? I do not "think that Apple is failing as a company." However, they are in fear of losing their halo and the $60 billion dollars signifies inertia based on that fear. Here's the dilemma - purchasing a $20 billion dollar company with another $20 billion in unrealized value probably means the acquisition target is perceived as troubled. Getting involved in that kind of mess doesn't damage companies such as HP, the perception is that they are used to dealing with messy management issues. But it is easy to see Apple's halo easily tarnished by a pursuit of a company like Yahoo! or Foxconn. And even after spending $20 billion Apple would still be under dividend pressure. As for the Mac App Store, I did not "call it a failure" either. I pointed out that Mac Apps was a lackluster announcement - calling it the highlight of Back to the Mac is faint praise for anyone but the faithful. Apple boosted Mac sales by requiring a Mac for iPhone development, but with the growth of other mobile platforms, Mac sales are bound to slow. The Mac App store is a rearguard action and although a sound business decision because it's so cheap to implement, is clearly uninspired.

Zev 16y ago
You haven't answered my question. How is 30 billion different from 60 billion? Why would investors be okay with 30 billion cash in hand but not 60 billion? Whats the magic threshold? 31 billion? From the Back to the Mac event, Apple sold 13.7 million Mac's in 2010 fiscal year, for a 27% growth year-over-year . In comparison, there are "only" 600,000 iOS developers. I don't think its accurate to write off the Mac's resurgence as "Oh, people want to make iOS apps, nothing more." http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/20/apple-mac-numbers/ http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/20/apple-mac-numbers/
- brudgers 16y ago
  In a sense you're right, 30 and 60 billion represent the same thing - an inability to act by Apple management. On the other hand, when Apple had 30 billion one would ask "Don't they have a plan?" When they hit 60 the question becomes "WTF are they waiting for?" Tangent: every Mac developer isn't a one person shop. Question: WTF are they waiting for?