6 ms·
Apple spent something like a half-trillion on share buybacks. They could have averted this crisis a decade ago by thinking strategically. They didn't. Why give
by totalZero 4y ago
Apple spent something like a half-trillion on share buybacks. They could have averted this crisis a decade ago by thinking strategically. They didn't. Why give them credit where little or no credit is due?
- phpisthebest 4y ago
- d3ckard 4y agoDon't want to start a fight, but honestly, I only ever hear those types of arguments from people who don't use Apple hardware. People who do, in large majority, do it for two reasons: - build quality; - it mostly just works.
- phpisthebest 4y ago>>- build quality This is part of the marketing delusion, multiple people have done A/B testing to clearly show Apple Build Quality is either on par with the rest of the industry or in many specific examples WORSE, people that claim this often have ZERO experience with non-apple products or are comparing different classes like a budget consumer level Lenovo to the pro line of apple, of course of $500 unit will be of less quality than a $2500 unit For an example of poor build quality / engineering Check out Louis Rossmans' "Think Different" video where he outlines some of the various engineering problems Apple has had >>- it mostly just works. I see the often repeated, I have had android phone for decades and never had any issue with them, they just work as well. I am not sure what is "not working" on an Android, I can also say i have never had an Android phone that I had to hold "correctly" in order for the antenna to work... Again I think this stems from comparing different classes of phone, Apple only makes Mid to High eng phones, (which is the market I am in for Android devices I tend to buy the Flagship from the manufacturer) they do not make budget and entry phone, these low end phones will have more problem. Would it be better to just price out entire segments of the population? That does not seem to be socially moral
- GrinningFool 4y ago> I can also say i have never had an Android phone that I had to hold "correctly" in order for the antenna to work... It feels like you're trying to revive decade-old flamewars here. FWIW, on my Pixel 5 (and 2 before that), if I reverse my phone (hold normally but with camera at bottom) I get a drop in both cellular and wifi signal strength - more so if I'm in a location with marginal signal to begin with.
- mirthflat83 4y agoWhat a passionate comment about Apple. I guess some people are just this invested in Apple enough to write book-long comments on every single thread even tangentially related to Apple.
- smoldesu 4y agoNobody would need to write it if Apple didn't spend $XX billion on misleading marketing every year.
- 4y ago
- lightedman 4y ago"- build quality" When I worked as an Apple laptop repair tech, that was almost nonexistent. 2/3 logic boards shipped in to be used for repairs on customer computers were faulty. "- it mostly just works" Imagine a laptop perpetually-stuck on OSX 10.2.4 that can't ever upgrade or it borks the system - that was my experience dealing with Apple laptops years ago as a repair tech. School system iBooks and PowerBooks were the worst offenders, and Apple had no discerning way to let you know which image belonged on which hardware, so we were always having to reimage laptops in hopes we picked a proper image for them.
- smoldesu 4y agoBuild quality, that's a riot. Here's a riddle for you: my $300 Thinkpad and $1,500 Macbook Pro each hit the concrete from waist height. Which laptop can I open up and keep using like nothing happened?
- judge2020 4y agoBuild quality != resistance to drops. You can have a rugged, impervious laptop that will survive a drop from an airplane onto concrete, but if the keyboard flexes and mushes when you use it, that's not exactly 'good build quality'. Manufacturers optimize for different parts of the UX and it's valid for customers to pick which device they like based on how well the product does in whichever area they care about.
- deburo 4y agoDo you mean Apple should’ve built a fab instead of spending on buybacks?
- moloch-hai 4y agoThey should have built out solar and wind power generation capacity to displace ongoing CO2 emissions, instead of wasting the capital on buybacks.
- astrange 4y agoBuybacks are value neutral. In fact since Apple’s stock price is up, it “made money” on them. And they did that too: https://www.apple.com/environment/ https://www.apple.com/environment/
- macspoofing 4y ago>Apple spent something like a half-trillion on share buybacks. They could have averted this crisis a decade ago by thinking strategically. I don't understand the fixation on this. Share buybacks strengthen the stock price of the company, which the company can leverage in the future to raise more capital if needed (by re-releasing new shares to the market). From that perspective, they are better than dividends. Besides, right now, Apple isn't strapped for cash as they have around ~50 billion on-hand and could raise more if they wanted to. So Apple can still invest more in fab processes if that's what they want.
- anotherman554 4y ago"Share buybacks strengthen the stock price of the company, which the company can leverage in the future to raise more capital if needed (by re-releasing new shares to the market). From that perspective, they are better than dividends." You are confused. A 100 dollar company with 100 shares outstanding, each worth 1 dollar, is not better able to raise capital than a 100 dollar company with 50 shares outstanding, each worth 2 dollars. And even if it were a reverse stock split can convert the former to the latter.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ajhurliman 4y agoIn the case where there are 50 shares outstanding and each are worth 2 dollars, that would be true, but if there's a constant appetite for the public to invest in a company and a diminished number of shares, that would drive up the price.
- anotherman554 4y agoThat might be how you imagine the stock market works based on first principles but Investopedia tells us "The most liquid stocks tend to be those with a great deal of interest from various market actors and a lot of daily transaction volume. Such stocks will also attract a larger number of market makers who maintain a tighter two-sided market." https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/liquidity.asp In other words the more appetite for the stock, the more liquid the stock, and therefore the easier it is for a buyer to acquire the stock. This is presumably because stock market indexes will refuse to include an illiquid stock, meaning there will be less demand for the stock, and the stock price will drop. Apple did a 4 for 1 stock split in 2020. Do you really think they screwed over their investors because you know something they don't about how stocks are valued?
- yucky 4y agoIn 2008 Apple wasn't even in the top 15 US companies by market cap. Now they're the largest US company by quite a margin. The data says their approach was correct.
- moloch-hai 4y agoThe data says their approach worked for them, but not necessarily for their customers, who regularly are made to shoulder indignities other companies do not dare to impose.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoBuybacks are not stopping apple from building a fab. They still have more than enough money, they're just not interested.