backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by lightfoot.. on Mar 3 at 12:43 PM


  (Source: Apple Gazette)
The company's $40B USD cash stockpile allows the company to "write a check for" "big, bold things"

Apple is currently sitting on a vast pile of cash -- an estimated $40B USD -- equal to about one fifth of its market capitalization.  That's a rarity in the business world to say the least; in fact just about no company in tech industry, other than perhaps Microsoft has that much cash sitting around.

In a recent annual meeting, Apple Chief Executive Officer Steven P. Jobs discussed Apple's fiscal fatness and why he feels it's a good thing.  Sporting his traditional  trademark blue jeans and black mock turtleneck top ensemble, the Cupertino head man says that Apple is unlikely to commit to dividends or stock buybacks that would surely please the holders of Apple stock, which currently is trading at over $200/share on an average daily volume of 25M shares traded daily.

Instead, the cash allows for big moves -- like the iPad.  He states, "We're a large enough business now, that in order to really move the needle, we've got to be thinking pretty bold, pretty large. And who knows what's around the next corner.  When we think about big, bold things, we know that if we needed to acquire something, a piece of the puzzle, to make something big and bold a reality, we could write a check for it."

Some might interpret his last sentence to refer to acquisitions, but Jobs primarily is referring to internal expenditures.  Apple's current rosy financial situation came thanks to enormous risky investments in super-products like the iPod and iPhone that when they first debuted were unlike anything else seen on the market.

Apple also specializes in small acquisitions, typically to gain experience in a field it's unfamiliar with.  Describes Broadpoint Amtech analyst Brian Marshall, "Their historical use of cash has worked obviously very well.  Doing small deals, buying private companies with 100 to 150 engineers and integrating them with the Cupertino establishment and then taking their technology and making it pervasive throughout the organization."

The outlook for Apple is rather promising for the next year.  The company looks to grow and expand in the key Chinese market, opening 25 new stores there next year.  Some analysts also think that despite some public jokes and criticism about the company's new iPad tablet, that the tablet-cum-e-book reader may sell between 2 million and 5 million units.  Next month will give the first glimpse of the public's interest when the Wi-Fi version of the iPad debuts.  Some may wait until April, when the 3G version lands.

Despite its tremendous cash pile and popular products, Apple does face some key risks.  Its soaring popularity and brand image have come at the cost of increased scrutiny, and recent quality issues have soured Apple's image for some.  Apple also faces difficulties with it's tradition of intense secrecy, a tradition that reportedly leads it to maintain an army of secret agents that spy on its workforce.  The company's secretive nature recently came under fire when a worker at one of Apple's Chinese suppliers died under suspicious circumstances after losing an iPhone prototype; and a recent incident in which security guards at a parts supplier beat a foreign correspondent didn't help things much either.

Probably the biggest threat it faces, though, is maintaining the momentum on its products.  When the iPhone and unibody MacBook Pro debuted they had hardware on par with their top of the line competitors and they enjoyed sleeker packaging -- keys to justifying the devices' price premium.  Now several phones beat the iPhone's hardware in various areas (and they have Flash, something Apple feels threatened by and refuses to support).  Meanwhile, the MacBook Pro's hardware, particularly its CPU and GPU selection, is looking increasingly stale.  That said, there will probably be a MacBook refresh coming very soon and another iPhone refresh this summer that will help remedy those shortcomings.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

lol what...
By Shig on 2/26/2010 9:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
tablet-cum-e-book reader




RE: lol what...
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/26/2010 9:44:41 AM , Rating: 5
RE: lol what...
By Shig on 2/26/2010 9:52:05 AM , Rating: 2
I read a lot and have never seen that expression, learn something new everyday on the interwebzzzzz


RE: lol what...
By The0ne on 2/26/2010 10:00:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's hardly ever used in any literature because it doesn't fit in well with whatever your are writing about. I'm sure it was used here with good intention but I'm also pretty sure it may have been used with a agenda in mind.


RE: lol what...
By Shining Arcanine on 2/26/2010 10:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
Cum and agenda are both latin words.


RE: lol what...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/26/2010 10:15:30 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's hardly ever used in any literature because it doesn't fit in well with whatever your are writing about. I'm sure it was used here with good intention but I'm also pretty sure it may have been used with a agenda in mind.


Thanks for the writing advice, I'll consider it very carefully...


RE: lol what...
By Anoxanmore on 2/26/2010 11:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
I was trying to think of a quote to use here... but you made me LOL IRL... so thanks for making my co-workers look at me funny Jason. :P


RE: lol what...
By JonnyDough on 2/26/2010 12:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
No offense, but if I had a dime for every grammatical error I read on DT I'd own Daily Tech. I hardly think its your place to point out errors Mick, I think you should just stick to writing blogs and appreciate reader feedback. Naturally, the teen-minded individuals that read this site will be quick to make jest of anything even remotely sexual.


RE: lol what...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:30:19 PM , Rating: 5
"I hardly think its your place to point out errors Mick"

I have to side with Mick on this one. The one time it's ok to point out grammatical errors in web postings is in response to someone doing so to you...especially if they've made far more errors than did you.


RE: lol what...
By JonnyDough on 2/26/2010 12:34:55 PM , Rating: 1
The difference is that articles posted on a professional website ought to have editors or at the very least good peer review. A reader's comments can't be expected to be good. They're just a reader. I'm not siding with nitpicking, I'm just saying...one could bring up a slew of typos and spelling errors (not really typos since most of the authors these days use voice recog software to type, leading to part of the problem).


RE: lol what...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:47:06 PM , Rating: 5
While Jason makes more than his share of grammatical errors, the point you miss is that the OP's was nitpicking something that was NOT an error.


RE: lol what...
By Anoxanmore on 2/26/2010 12:43:53 PM , Rating: 3
Except this isn't a professional website?

(IE why they link to news articles inside the article itself)


RE: lol what...
By p05esto on 2/27/2010 6:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
I hate morons who post about grammar mistakes more than anything in the world. Heck, I'd rather talk with a homosexual than a tard who thinks it's a good idea to post about a spelling mistakes. Please go away, never come back.


RE: lol what...
By DominionSeraph on 2/28/2010 2:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate morons who post about grammar mistakes more than anything in the world.


Really? I've never met a person who posts about grammar mistakes more than anything in the world.


RE: lol what...
By bldckstark on 3/1/2010 2:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather be homosexual than have to listen to a tard talk about how much he hates reading posts about grammatical errors.


RE: lol what...
By Lifted on 2/26/2010 12:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the irony. Those in glass houses...

quote:
Apple stock, which current is trading at over $200/share


quote:
Probably the biggest threat it faces, though is maintaining the momentum on its products.


RE: lol what...
By The0ne on 2/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: lol what...
By The0ne on 2/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: lol what...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 1:00:44 PM , Rating: 5
"I write write technical, process and test reports daily..."

Oh, the delicious irony...

I'd be right behind you if you were actually pointing out real flaws in Jason's writing. However, you started this by attacking a perfectly valid and common usage. It's not Jason's fault if your limited reading experience led to you believe it's incorrect.

Now PLEASE...I'm getting a bit queasy from defending Jason. Don't make me do it again.


RE: lol what...
By dark matter on 3/1/2010 6:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you like that, you'll love where I live.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorlton-cum-Hardy

:)


RE: lol what...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/26/2010 9:48:18 AM , Rating: 4
Somebody's mind is in the gutter! ;)

I'll give ya a pass, though, maybe it was just all the apple/adult app stories of late that got you confused.


RE: lol what...
By MadMan007 on 2/26/2010 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
You'll love this one -

"magna cum laude"

Yeah, that's right, magna cums REALLY loud, eh?


RE: lol what...
By Smartless on 2/26/2010 1:37:23 PM , Rating: 5
Some cum Louder
"summa cum laude"


RE: lol what...
By Hiawa23 on 2/26/2010 12:43:49 PM , Rating: 2
Well, not surprising. If you sell a bunch of overpriced products your margins are huge, you should have a nice war chess. What next for Apple, a video gam console. Apple can pretty much do whatever they want.


RE: lol what...
By michael2k on 2/28/2010 9:15:13 AM , Rating: 3
You make it sound easy to sell 40m iPhones. Go talk to Palm, maybe you can help them out.


The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
"Apple is currently sitting on a vast pile of cash -- an estimated $40B USD -- equal to about one fifth of its market capitalization...."

Apple's last annual balance sheet shows them with just under $30B in cash equivalents and other short term investments...equal to Google, a bit more than Intel, and much less than Microsoft's $50B.

Tech companies (and many others) traditionally do not pay dividends (i.e. "give back money to their shareholders"). For any company in a fast-growing field, dividends are generally a bad idea, the shareholders buy into these firms not for a small cash return, but because they want the company to grow in value as much as possible.




RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By JonnyDough on 2/26/2010 12:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
To give you an idea how much 40 Billion is though...

If you had one billion and bought a $200,000 car every day for a year you'd only spend $73 million or 73,000,000.

A billion is 1,000,000,000.

Possibly also of interest:

http://infosthetics.com/archives/2009/01/one_billi...


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:38:09 PM , Rating: 3
I'll give you a better idea how much a billion is. If you spent $1B a day every day for the next 10 years, you still wouldn't equal the amount of money Obama is spending on the 2011 budget.

Now for the $64,000 question...what does any of this have to do with Apple?


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By UncleRufus on 2/26/2010 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Or in less sensationalistic terms, a 14% spending increase over George Bush's 2009 budget.

Still a sizeable increase, though, yeah.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
"a 14% spending increase over George Bush's 2009 budget."

An increase from $3T (2009) to $3.83T (2011) is a 27% increase.

And the more important figure is the increase in the deficit-- from $400B to $1.56 trillion: a 390% rise.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By excelsium on 2/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By UncleRufus on 2/26/2010 2:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Correction, make that 18%. I was looking at the 2010 budget.


By UncleRufus on 2/26/2010 2:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, yep. I was doing my math backwards. Apologies.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By sinful on 2/26/2010 7:50:05 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'll give you a better idea how much a billion is. If you spent $1B a day every day for the next 10 years, you still wouldn't equal the amount of money Obama is spending on the 2011 budget.


Or, about the same price as what the War in Iraq/Afghanistan is going to cost us. Thanks Bush!


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 10:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Or, about the same price as what the War in Iraq/Afghanistan is going to cost us"

The war in Iraq has cost $704B to date...or less than the costs from the amount Obama has increased the size of government by in his first year in office alone. Even worse, a war is a temporary expense...but you pay for a government expansion forever.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By lightfoot on 2/26/2010 1:02:11 PM , Rating: 3
Or put another way if the $40 Billion dollar cash horde were converted to $100 bills (the largest US bill currently in circulation) the pile of cash would weigh about half as much as the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) supercarrier.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 1:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Not even close. $40B at 1 gram per $100 bill = 400M grams = 400 metric tons. The USS Enterprise weighs 92,000 long tons loaded...and a long ton is just a bit larger than a metric ton.

In $1 bills you would be correct.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By lightfoot on 2/26/2010 2:10:06 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake - you caught my math error before I did.

Only 400 Metric tons of $100 bills.

Still, counting your money by the ton is a good problem to have.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By Solandri on 2/26/2010 4:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To give you an idea how much 40 Billion is though...

It's enough to buy every man, woman, and child in the U.S. an iPod Nano (~$135 ea).


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By JonnyDough on 2/26/2010 12:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the shareholders buy into these firms not for a small cash return, but because they want the company to grow in value as much as possible.


Those who wish to can reinvest their dividends. I think the option should be up to investors. Those with smaller investments would probably prefer a dividend, as would shorter-term investors. Ever hear the term "playing the stocks"? If I let Apple borrow $5K for one year and they make money it would be nice to be able to actually SEE a bit of that return as stock prices may drop tomorrow or may never rise despite the company doing well. The SMART thing to do is give SOME back to investors. Why hoard it? Without investment the company won't grow. This could actually make Apple stock DROP as people sell stocks because the company is unwilling to share. Small dividends paid out can be a great reminder to investors that your company is doing well. It can actually help secure future capital.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:44:05 PM , Rating: 3
" If I let Apple borrow $5K for one year and they make money it would be nice to be able to actually SEE a bit of that return"

You don't buy stock, I see. First of all, buying shares is not "lending" money to Apple. If you want to lend money, buy a one-year bond. You'll then get your money back, with interest in 12 months.

In the stock market, you buy shares for them to appreciate in value. Shares increase in value when a company increases in value. Companies in fast-growing fields do that best by retaining their profits to reinvest and grow the business....NOT by piddling away their capital in small dividend payouts.

Apple has nearly a billion shares outstanding. Paying out their cash pile as dividends would equate to a bit more than $40 per share...but doing so would drop their per-share value by at least the same amount, and also leave the company in a very vulnerable position, should it need cash for any unexpected expense.


RE: The headline burn 'mo eyes...
By lightfoot on 2/26/2010 2:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
Good points, but specifically buying stock in a company is buying an ownership stake in the company. It is not lending money to the company, it is literally buying the company (at least a very small part.) If the company grows or otherwise becomes more valuable, your share of the company likewise becomes more valuable. Companies grow in two ways - by reinvesting profits in themselves, and by issuing new stock. By paying out dividends or buying back stock, Apple would be effectively shrinking the company. Not something that is generally looked at as a good thing.

Very large companies (like Microsoft, GE, and Boeing) tend to pay out dividends because further growing their companies could run afoul of anti-trust laws. Apple is nowhere near this point (except possibly in the MP3 player market.) Their best course of action, as mentioned by others earlier, is to continue to grow their company.


By crystal clear on 2/27/2010 7:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Without any reference to Apple & just for information-

Intel Declares Quarterly Cash Dividend

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Jan. 22, 2010 – Intel Corporation's board of directors has declared a 15.75 cents per share quarterly dividend on the company's common stock, reflecting the previously announced 12.5 percent increase from the fourth quarter of 2009. The dividend will be payable on March 1, 2010 to stockholders of record on Feb. 7, 2010.



http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20...

The company generated more than $11 billion in cash from operations and paid cash dividends of $3.1 billion.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20...

Now to Apple- Note it call itself a mobile device company !

Yes they did the right thing NOT paying dividends as they now have to compete with giants Nokia,Google etc for that you need a lot of cash sitting on the fence for acquisitions & other expenses that come with the competition in the superbowl league of the mobile world.

Microsoft will heavily subsidize hardware manufacturers to use their Windows mobile 7,whilst Google will do the same to use their Andriod,whilst Intel via Nokia will also do the same with their MeeGo software platform (read the link)

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20...

In this superbowl of the mobile world, the teams are cash rich with No expenses spared.


No reason to...
By UncleRufus on 2/26/2010 11:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
No reason to share the 40 Billion with shareholders, as the stock is up 100% over the last year.




RE: No reason to...
By Suntan on 2/26/2010 12:02:33 PM , Rating: 2
That is silly logic. If you bought the stock one and a half years ago, your investment would look as if it has done pretty much nothing.

Invest in Apple if you think that Jobs can do no wrong with his personal agenda, because it has been clear for a long time that this is the *only* thing driving him. He cares little for his investors and their wishes.

-Suntan


RE: No reason to...
By kmmatney on 2/26/2010 12:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
And he shouldn't. He should just care about making the best products for his customers.


RE: No reason to...
By Suntan on 2/26/2010 12:55:19 PM , Rating: 3
No, as he works for a "public" company, his legal obligations are to his shareholders first.

The fact that doing right by your customers is usually in line with what your shareholders want still doesn't change the fact that, legally, his shareholders come first.

-Suntan


RE: No reason to...
By cmdrdredd on 2/26/2010 6:28:01 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And he shouldn't. He should just care about making the best products for his customers.


And the latest Macs and various other devices have had more problems than the competition and other options in the market.


RE: No reason to...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 10:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Really? The latest PC Magazine reliability survey shows Apple leading on desktops, mp3 players, and cell phones:

http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,2806,1626131,00.a...

But I guess sensationalist hearsay beats out facts any day of the week.


RE: No reason to...
By dark matter on 3/1/2010 7:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
And subscribers of a PC magazine completely reflect the whole of iPhone users don't they.


RE: No reason to...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs is doing what his shareholder's want...and he's also not doing anything unusual in the tech world. You don't stock in a tech company for dividends; you buy it in the hopes the company will grow in value.


RE: No reason to...
By MadMan007 on 2/26/2010 12:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite so black and white. There are quite a few mature or market dominant tech companies that have dividends. Intel, MS, HPQ, IBM, but for the most part tech companies don't have dividends it's true. It doesn't mean that tech = no dividends either though.


RE: No reason to...
By Suntan on 2/26/2010 1:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
You're confusing a "growth" company with a "tech" company.

One is a market strategy, the other is a market sector. The line has just been blurred in the last decade or so because a large majority of the "Fancy Tech Companies" that everyone loved to talk about and had such a wild tear in their stock value never made any real money to distribute as dividends.

In any case, all I said was that a person should only invest in Apple if they believe that Job's personal direction is the right way to go. Do you see anything wrong with that statement?

-Suntan


RE: No reason to...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
"You're confusing a "growth" company with a "tech" company"

No, I'm merely not adding extraneous detail. The tech sector has been the primary growth sector of the US stock market for many decades now.

" The line has just been blurred in the last decade or so because..."

The trend to replace dividend payouts with market cap growth actually began in the late 1960s.

"all I said was that a person should only invest in Apple if they believe that Job's personal direction is the right way to go...."

Jobs owns a small fraction of Apple's stock. If Apple's shareholders truly disagreed with his direction, he'd be out at the next shareholder meeting. But I think every shareholder remembers quite well what happened to Apple when Scully and Co. threw Jobs out on his ear.


RE: No reason to...
By Suntan on 2/26/2010 1:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
So what you are really saying is that, in fact, you do not see anything wrong with that statement… you just had to add a lot of words that really didn’t relate to anything you quoted before doing it, huh?

Have a good weekend brother.

-Suntan


RE: No reason to...
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 2:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
What I'm saying is that your statement that Jobs' actions run counter to the majority wishes of his shareholders is incorrect.


Well...
By bradmshannon on 2/26/2010 9:44:16 AM , Rating: 5
I'd expect them to have a shitload of cash sitting around when they charge as much as they do for their products! Holy shit!




RE: Well...
By alanore on 2/26/2010 10:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
Just shows the mark-up on their products


RE: Well...
By Motoman on 2/26/2010 10:44:23 AM , Rating: 5
...and the gullibility of the market.


RE: Well...
By tallcool1 on 2/26/2010 12:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad the US govt doesn't practice fiscal responsibility like Apple does!


RE: Well...
By Hiawa23 on 2/26/2010 12:56:05 PM , Rating: 3
Capitalism at it's finest. If the masses buy your overpriced products, well, isn't that's what business is supposed to do, ring up huggggggggggggggggge profits.

Take that Big Oil, & you big bad insurance companies....

I don't own one Apple product & don't plan to.


I actually agree with Steve (on this one)
By 3minence on 2/26/2010 10:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's good to have some financial resources at hand. It's good for a rainy day so you don't have to go see the banker, and it's good for what Steve said.

Now if they would just spend a little of it to give the iPhone/iPad a real multitasking OS...




RE: I actually agree with Steve (on this one)
By mcnabney on 2/26/2010 11:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
Or you could just buy some shares back. It would raise their shareholder value and the money could be easily replenished when needed under a new stock offering. It isn't making anyone any money if it sits around as cash.


RE: I actually agree with Steve (on this one)
By porkpie on 2/26/2010 12:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
" It isn't making anyone any money if it sits around as cash."

What's reported as "cash" is swept almost entirely into short-term investments of one sort or another. Apple is making money on their cash on hand, never fear.


By lightfoot on 2/26/2010 12:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
I heard that Apple was investing it in the iMattress.


By killerroach on 2/26/2010 12:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
Also, once you progress into a market niche, further moves require greater and greater risk, usually speaking. People were puzzled about the iPod when it was first announced, quasi-skeptical about the iPhone, and now almost flat-out doubtful about the iPad's prospects.

It's possible that further plans will prove to be just as profitable as their predecessors, but devouring a large chunk of a market is nowhere near as risky as trying to grow the market once you're already the 800-pound gorilla in the room.


By kb9fcc on 2/26/2010 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
I also agree. Far too often companies focus too intently on sucking up to the shareholders with short term profits and large dividends rather than taking a long term, big picture approach. Instead of realizing that maybe the best thing for the shareholders just might be a strong, stable, financially secure company with long term (5, 10, 20+ years) goals as to where they want to be and are actively working and investing in those goals now, they look for the quick buck.

How many times have we heard "...to focus on our core competencies..." as companies spin off some profitable (often cash cow) business unit as they take a gamble on some units they do keep? And really, instead of financing to the hilt remaining projects, the cash goes to the shareholders (and upper-management) as a distraction from the main event. Here's a thought, how about keeping the cash cow and using it's profits to subsidize the new projects until they get on their own legs? Does your financial investment adviser tell you to put all you money into only one stock? No? Then why do companies do that to themselves?

Or how about this one? How does a company quickly show a profit to have a good end of quarter showing to keep the shareholders happy with some pittance dividend? That's right, you layoff a bunch of your employees and get those "nasty" expenses off the books to reap that paper profit. Never mind no one is left to do the work, understand the product, or is now so over worked to do a good job on all projects. Or that the work "off-shored" is in jeopardy because it's taking longer to get up to speed due to logistics, etc. or that your IP is possibly being compromised as that workforce turns over faster than clothes in a coin-op laundry mat.

So, good for Jobs and Apple. Build that war-chest and invest it in R&D, blue sky projects, and hobbies like Apple TV, etc. Bank on the future and innovate like crazy. Tell the shareholders to be patient and not so greedy. Tell the analysts to shut up and stick their heads where get most of the ideas (where the sun don't shine) because they've shown over and over (Mac, MacBook, MacOS, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, and soon iPad, etc.) that they absolutely no clue and have either financial private agendas or are shills for other interests.

And no, I do not own Apple stock or have Mac, iPod, iPhone, or even an iTunes account. My newest Apple is a IIGS that's almost 25 years old and gathering dust in the basement.


Chapitalism
By hiscross on 2/26/2010 11:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
I love it. Way to go. Bill Gates was been worth over $40B at times. People who Produce should never have to give their money to anyone who can't or won't produce. A = A.




RE: Chapitalism
By Smilin on 2/26/2010 4:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes people who invest should never be paid dividends on their investment. If you want to earn money you must produce something! (with someone else investment money).


RE: Chapitalism
By hiscross on 2/27/2010 10:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
People who buy apple Know apple isn't going dividends. They buy their to sell when the price is right. Really simple A = A


RE: Chapitalism
By Smilin on 3/2/2010 11:51:54 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

This didn't make sense to me though:
"People who Produce should never have to give their money to anyone who can't or won't produce"

There are a lot of investors who don't produce anything yet nothing would be produced without them. They are certainly owed money in one way or another (net gains on share sales, dividends etc..).

Apple is a "baseball card" stock right now...worth only what someone else will pay for it. The game will end eventually and some investor will be stuck holding something of poor value. Stock buyers are just betting it won't be them. It's hard to have such a "bubble" if you pay dividends though.


Egocentrism is not a sign of Genius
By Kahnivorous on 2/27/2010 12:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not even sure why anyone was even listening to him speak, or why it had to be written. Everyone knows he's just an oddity that knows how to manipulate situations and people to fit his mental image of success. And, all those leeches on his payroll are happy to play along as long as they get any kind of piece of that pie.

Of course he's not going to reward investors. This should make stock holders feel pretty friggin appreciated about Apple.

Someone should also tell him, his attempt with the blue jeans and black turtle neck failed. The phrase "de de deeeeee" comes to mind.




RE: Egocentrism is not a sign of Genius
By crystal clear on 2/27/2010 3:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course he's not going to reward investors. This should make stock holders feel pretty friggin appreciated about Apple.


Remember this quote-

"and yet Apple's revenue last year was over $40 billion. I think the only other company that could say that is an oil company".

Apple's successes inspires jealousy & hatred in you !

http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Says+No+to+Good+Ide...

They the shareholders can sell their shares if they are not happy about the situation....would they ???

Never ! what better place to park your cash at Apple ! in times of crisis, instead of banks/stock exchange/etc.

...or would you prefer AMD type of bussines model/management ...losses & debts year after year.

Atleast they dont payout huge bonuses to their managers like banks do, they reinvest their money into the business for future expansion/use & R&D ofcourse & creating new jobs !.


By porkpie on 2/27/2010 8:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Of course he's not going to reward investors."

In case you ever grow up and begin buying stock yourself, here's a lesson for you. If Apple paid out the entire cash stockpile to its shareholders, they'd receive $40 per share...and the stock price would drop by the same amount. Net benefit from the "sharing": zero.

TANSTAAFL. You can't create something from nothing.


Yet another tabloid article by Jason Mick
By wooodmann on 2/26/2010 3:44:12 PM , Rating: 1
Jason Mick, paragon of journalistic integrity *cough*, has once again astounded us with his brilliance by conjuring up yet another Apple-hating article. Framing it with a clearly inflammatory headline "Apple Has $40B in Cash and CEO Jobs Isn't About to Share it with Shareholders" => and what kind of picture can this possibly conjure up apart from a negative one? He then goes on to highlight the things he believes Apple has done wrong - and very little about what Apple has done right (they are a highly successful company, remember?).

I have rarely seen a more biased author posing as a responsible "news" reporter. He should call this site "we hate [insert flavour of the day]". Jason's trashy article from Feb 19 only serves to highlight his tabloid writing style => http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17738

Jason, if you have any integrity left, I challenge you to respond and explain how you can possibly call yourself an impartial "news reporter" given the flaming biases that permeate your articles. But that is probably too much to expect from someone whose purpose is to generate public interest by crafting inflammatory and petty spoutings instead of actual "news"... The "Kitty Kelly" of tech news.




RE: Yet another tabloid article by Jason Mick
By cmdrdredd on 2/26/2010 6:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you're willing to bend over and take it from Jobs doesn't mean everyone is. You might worship him now, but when he finally dies and Apple goes down the tube and bankrupts itself we will see how loyal you are...

Remember when there were unsubstantiated rumors floating around about Jobs getting a liver transplant or something of that sort and being away? What did the stock do? Nose dive worse than me trying to skateboard.


By porkpie on 2/27/2010 8:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations! I have rarely seen someone so utterly misinterpret a post. The OP wasn't defending Apple, he was criticizing a heavily biased piece of journalism.


How Apple made money
By martinrichards23 on 2/26/2010 9:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
Apple made big money because they were to first to realise product image was so important. No more to say.




RE: How Apple made money
By JonnyDough on 2/26/2010 12:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Also because of investor capital...hence why they ought to share.


By crystal clear on 2/27/2010 1:21:44 AM , Rating: 2
I stand for accuracy in reporting & correct analysis of the subject,free of any bias & any hidden agenda.

Apple in the past & even today is criticized for just anything it does/did,without any effort from neither the D.T. staff & commentators to do even the basic research to justify their comments/opinions/facts/reporting.

Now read this-
Supplier Responsibility
2010 Progress Report

In 2009, Apple conducted audits at 102 facilities, including annual audits of all final assembly manufacturers, first-time audits of component and nonproduction suppliers, and 15 repeat audits of facilities where a core violation had been discovered.

During most of our audits, suppliers stated-
that Apple was the only company that had ever audited their facility for supplier responsibility
.


More on the report-

Underage labor
Apple discovered three facilities that had previously hired 15-year-old workers in countries where the minimum age for employment is 16. Across the three facilities, our auditors found records of 11 workers who had been hired prior
to reaching the legal age, although the workers were no longer underage or no longer in active employment at the time of our audit.

In each of the three facilities, we required a review of all employment records for the year prior to our audit, as well as a complete analysis of the hiring process to clarify how underage people had been able to gain employment.

Apple required each facility to develop and institute appropriate management systems—such as more thorough ID checks and verification procedures—to prevent future employment of underage workers.

Improper disposal of hazardous waste

Apple discovered three facilities that had hired noncertified hazardous waste disposal companies. We classified these instances as core violations and required all three facilities to immediately stop shipping waste and to hire certified vendors for all of their hazardous waste disposal. Apple required each facility to engage a third-party consultant and to undergo a thorough review of their systems for managing hazardous substances.
In addition, Apple required these facilities to perform immediate inspections of their wastewater discharge systems. We also required them to hire an independent environmental professional to conduct an onsite environmental review and implement management systems to prevent future violations.

Falsification of records

Three core violations involved suppliers who deliberately provided falsified records during our audit. One facility attempted to conceal evidence of historical cases of underage labor. Two other facilities presented falsified records that concealed evidence of violations of Apple’s Code regarding working hours and days of rest. In all three cases, Apple auditors uncovered
the falsified records by cross-referencing audit data.
In one instance, Apple’s 2008 audit had revealed falsified records for working hours and days of rest. When Apple returned in 2009 for a core violation reaudit, the facility again falsified records—presenting worker timecards, daily production output records, and quality control records that indicated no violations related to working hours or days of rest. When Apple investigated further, we uncovered additional records and conducted worker interviews that revealed excessive working hours and seven days of continuous work.
When confronted with this information, the facility provided Apple with accurate timecards. Based on the repeat core violation and inadequate actions, Apple is terminating all business with this facility. In all three cases, Apple required an independent audit to review human resources records and to look for additional falsified records. These follow-up investigations did not reveal any additional falsified documents. In the two cases involving working hours and days of rest, our auditor confirmed workers had been paid the appropriate amount for hours actually worked.

Frequent Violations and Corrective Actions

Following are details around our audit findings in subcategories where our audits revealed noncompliance across many facilities.

Working hours

Apple’s Code sets a maximum of 60 work hours per week and requires at least one day of rest per seven days of work, while allowing exceptions in unusual or emergency circumstances.

http://regmedia.co.uk/2010/02/26/apple_supplier_re...




By porkpie on 2/27/2010 10:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
Good post. Personally, I loathe Apple with every breath of my body...but I loathe biased reporting even more.


By crystal clear on 2/27/2010 2:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We're a large enough business now, that in order to really move the needle, we've got to be thinking pretty bold, pretty large. And who knows what's around the next corner. When we think about big, bold things, we know that if we needed to acquire something, a piece of the puzzle, to make something big and bold a reality, we could write a check for it."


Apple calls itself a "mobile device company" & they are in mobile business.

The company is moving beyond its traditional base in personal computers and charging into smartphones and mobile computing.

Competing with the big boys in the business like Nokia & Blackberry etc means lots of ready cash (waiting to be used) at its disposal to use for acquisitons/buyouts/takeovers etc & integrate new technologies into its business operation/new products etc.

Apple like Nokia/Google etc has become more active in searching for startups that can give it the technology boost.

Apple learnt from its previous mistakes-

As Apple was negotiating with the mobile advertising firm AdMob last fall, Google swooped in and quickly bought the company for $750 million.

Apple entered the bidding for the online music site Lala.com, after Google and several other potential acquirers had gotten involved. The company moved unusually quickly, closing the deal in a few weeks, rather than the more typical two to three months. It was clear that Apple didn't want to lose out again, and especially not to Google.

Read this-

Last year, Apple quietly hired a Goldman Sachs (GS) investment banker, Adrian Perica, to help the company cut deals. Multiple sources close to Apple say they believe Perica is the first dedicated M&A specialist on staff. The company has also stepped up its pace of acquisitions.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_04...




By crystal clear on 2/28/2010 4:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
Some quotes from the gartner report-(recommend read the full report on the link below)

In 2009, smartphone-focused vendors like Apple and Research In Motion (RIM) successfully captured market share from other larger device producers, controlling 14.4 and 19.9 per cent of the worldwide smartphone market, respectively.”

In the smartphone OS market, Symbian continued its lead, but its share dropped 5.4 percentage points in 2009 (see Table 2). Competitive pressure from its competitors, such as RIM and Apple, and the continued weakness of Nokia's high-end device sales have negatively impacted Symbian's share.

The two best performers in 2009 were Android and Apple. Android increased its market share by 3.5 percentage points in 2009, while Apple's share grew by 6.2 percentage points from 2008, which helped it move to the No. 3 position and displace Microsoft Windows Mobile.



Table 2
Worldwide Smartphone Sales to End Users by Operating System in 2009 (Thousands of Units)

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1306513


Perfector not innovator
By Lonyo on 2/26/2010 11:43:35 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
risky investments in super-products like the iPod and iPhone that when they first debuted were unlike anything else seen on the market.

Risky investments, maybe.
Unlike anything else seen on the market? Hardly (other than by being locked down products with limited feature set and high prices).




bold?
By alpensiedler on 2/26/2010 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 3
yeah the ipad was really bold. its a doubly sized ipod. damn that was bold... the fact that they have so much money is a direct result of human devolution...




Why is this news?
By smartalco on 2/26/2010 11:18:31 AM , Rating: 2
Hasn't it been known for years that Apple hoards its cash like no other?




LOL..
By StraightCashHomey on 2/26/2010 11:50:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company's secretive nature recently came under fire when a worker at one of Apple's Chinese suppliers died under suspicious circumstances after losing an iPhone prototype;




Simple answer
By ralniv on 2/26/2010 7:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
CEO's are accountable to stock holders, but stock holders do not run companies.

In other words, if you don't like how Jobs runs Apple, then invest elsewhere.




iPad marketing
By OCedHrt on 2/28/2010 1:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
The amount of marketing done for it is insane. It's all over the radio and you can't even buy it yet.




Legal fees
By lightfoot on 3/3/2010 12:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company's $40B USD cash stockpile allows the company to "write a check for" "big, bold things"

Like suing HTC, Google and Microsoft.

iTroll (patent pending)




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki