381–390 of 527 posts
If you’re sitting at home playing armchair quarterback with this stuff, all I can say is I hope you’re not responsible for managing any actual money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have stopped expecting exponential growth, that's what the linked article is about. "Slowing Growth" is literally in the title! And that means things, like for example the stock has to decline and/or dividends increase because it becomes more productive to put that money into companies that are growing. Investors care about news like this. It seems like a lot (a lot ) of readers here are looking at the article as…
Thats the reason Buffet has now invested in Apple as he prefers a stable earnings. His investment indicated to me that Apple will be a stable investment going forward and won't have the upward and downwards swings of fast growing company where there can be large swings up or down with each quarter earnings
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are we taking AOC seriously on anything related to economics? AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Just because the source isn't coming from Wall St or Corporate America doesn't make it invalid. It's not clear how much of the research behind her reasoning and arguments come from her or her team, either way if you have a counter ar…
AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out?
She's never been a presidential candidate, but what do the words of a pathological liar have to do with anything? That no-one can be trusted and everyone will always do the opposite of what they say they'll do?
If you've followed the House meetings AOC has participated in you would've noticed that she's been committed to exposing corruption and corporate greed that she's brought to light. She's also taken a public pledge to refuse any corporate PAC money that she's highlighted (in another House Meeting) was a common cause of corruption.
So I'll take her word over a serial liar who's been favorable towards companies, lobbyists and foreign nationals that frequents his hotels and earned him more than $80M in revenues.
Regardless this thread has become unnecessarily political. Her point was about the negative consequences of Buy Backs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AOC has at least studied economics at Boston University and has made it a goal to go after corruption and corporate greed. Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out?
> Another presidential candidate said he would “clear the swamp”. How did that work out? She's never been a presidential candidate, but what do the words of a pathological liar have to do with anything? That no-one can be trusted and everyone will always do the opposite of what they say they'll do? If you've followed the House meetings AOC has participated in you would've noticed that she's been committed to exposing…
Obama’s administration had almost no personal legal issues, was much more popular than the current administration and still couldn’t get much done after the first two years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
… they're also good products. It's not just the status symbol thing. People like their products.
Some of their products are very good. Some, not so much. That’s the weird thing. I guess AirPods work for some, but I wouldn’t touch them.
The Butterly keyboard is the only thing I can think is genuinely, objectively, "bad", due to the reliability issues, but it's hard to say it taints the whole MacBook Pro. I use one everyday, have since they were released, and it's a great laptop for me.
Either way, I'm mostly commenting on the ever-popular and lazy comment that equates Apple's success solely to marketing. Apple's products are successful because they're good products, marketed well. Yes, they're marketed well, but that marketing is only effective because the products being marketed are genuinely "good".
Also they messed up really hard when they introduced the new MBP keyboards which now all have to be replaced.
The iPad started to be useful much too slow and in the meanwhile less and less people would even consider it when comparing with a surface.
There is one more thing: The ecosystem seemed to be cool some day. Now it's nothing special anymore and it's not really magical how many things don't work together (because software, bugs, whatever...).
I buy the nice devices as used parts because they had times when they produced some cool stuff that I still like to use. Maybe not with their OS but this will probably change when less money gives them more pressure to be innovative again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AAPL's capacity for sustainance is doubtful, when they are giving money back to investors. What is the growth path for them ? They will continue to milk successful product but no "next" strategy in sight.
There was no iPhone until there was, no iPad until there was - I don't see the big deal here.
NY Times made a mess of this story and slanted it toward their agendas. Horrible reporting. Apple beat most estimates. Revenues grew. All time high revenue from services. Forward guidance was raised. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/07/apple-reports-third-q...
That's a bit spun too, though. Revenue is up just .93%. Net income is down 12.7%. And they beat the estimates because the estimates were expecting bad news, as the overall trend has been stagnant for about two years. Those just aren't good numbers for a company that, over the past decade, has been literally the most profitable in history. They aren't "bad" numbers, but for Apple they're sort of a disaster. The iPhone…