AAPL is still undervalued compared to stocks like AMZN. Apple's P/E of 17 is amazing compared to Amazons 78. I'm not really sure why their stock isn't traded with the same enthusiasm that other tech companies see.
Stock values aren't only about earnings. Amazon continues to be a growth bet, and their low earnings are because their income has historically been reinvested productively to access new markets. A quick google shows their 2018 revenue was up 31% over 2017, which was up 31% over 2016, which was up 27% over 2015. You don't buy Amazon for a share of the amount they're making today, you buy them for a share of the much bigger company they'll be tomorrow.
Apple, on the other hand, sells boutique products into a rapidly commoditizing market, and is having a terrible time with growth right now (the numbers today show less than 1% revenue growth). So profit is the only reason to buy AAPL right now. And the profits? Down almost 13%.
It’s a commoditized market and Apple’s success blueprint is out for everyone to see, yet no one else can adapt mid century design principles and “high fashion” style marketing to technology. This sounds like shilling (and I do own Apple stock) but I’m serious.
Compare the Apple remote (with the iOS “emulator”), Apple TV, and Airplay to Chromecast’s UX, for instance. Apple does have special sauce. They make tools that work together and are understood at a surface level. Everything, including the new keyboards, fits a hardware market driven agenda (quiet, “appy”, small like a phone). Google and Amazon work backwards from services, and Samsung and co just aren’t even playing the same ballgame. They are much more like traditional prebuilt computer companies. MS is kind of coming close with just computers but they are not nearly as sticky as an everything tech company.
I hear that constantly, but it's my favorite remote. I did, however, buy a sub 10 dollar silicone case for it, with a strap. It's easy to grip, comfortable, doesn't slide, and it is always obvious which way is up/forward both visually and tactilely. I think the shortcomings are well addressed with such a simple fix. But, I also use a case on my phone to fix it's same shortcomings, so perhaps that's why it doesn't feel like such a leap to me.
On the other hand, it might just be that I can get used to anything. (Err, I also think the Apple TV UI is fine, too. But, perhaps I lack the imagination to envision a better UI.)
I'm not sure why you are getting downvoted, I just got one and it's terrible to use. Mostly I get my phone out and use that instead. The original was better than the current one.
> Because it only contains a conclusion, no premises whatsoever. Which is basically fuel for a flame-bait.
I was responding to the parent's comment about Apple TV (the premise) with my conclusion, which is a subjective opinion. Which ironically is the exact same thing as what you're doing. Wasn't trying to flame-bait, but I really didn't feel the need to add more. In summary, compared to other devices, I really do not like Apple TV.
What is the alternative? It’s enough like a traditional TV guide experience that people get it, its remote uses similar touch physics as iOS (I typically tap directions rather than swipe though), your phone can act as a remote (with an identical UI) or a keyboard, and you can cast any arbitrary content pretty seamlessly. I also love that the iOS remote actually controls my AV receiver’s power and volume.
The music app can get too deeply nested, but in general it is above all a consistent tabbed master-view experience in every app. The apis exposed to developers all lend to a very good, consistent experience for everything I’ve tried except YouTube TV, which doesn’t utilize the standard media transport API.
In general I like the idea that casting, while still as deeply integrated as Google Cast, is supplemental to the hardware remote. It’s not an afterthought, and neither is the remote. Both are good IMO.
Truly my only complaint is that the app switching dialogue uses reversed/“physical” swiping direction (like switching desktops with a trackpad). This makes no sense to me, as nothing else does this, including swiping between album covers in now playing. I get it, but it’s inconsistent with the whole rest of the UI.
Having used both of them, I'd profoundly disagree with you on that statement. I consider CarPlay a much more elegant solution than Android Auto. Particularly that android auto will change settings on your head unit. The early versions of it also completely disabled your phone screen.
CarPlay is getting way better in iOS 13. E.g. you can finally run different apps on the car screen and the phone! It also has a nice "home screen" with useful widgets instead of just a grid of icons.
Design UI well enough? I guess it depends on what you are used to.
For me, Google will always be the company that high-jacked scrolling to use for zoom. That still trips me up every time I have to use Google Maps or any other mapping service that copied them on a laptop with a trackpad.
They could keep that default (misguided as I personally think it is) if they just provided an option to let scroll be scroll but they don't.
I'd much rather pay a premium for Apple's UI. I think they do a better job and it's worth paying for.
> For me, Google will always be the company that high-jacked scrolling to use for zoom. That still trips me up every time I have to use Google Maps or any other mapping service that copied them on a laptop with a trackpad.
So you use that for vertical scrolling. How would you do horizontal scrolling on a typical mouse then?
The default of holding left click and dragging the map across to move the viewport is far more intuitive.
I don't have an opinion on how this should be done on a "typical mouse", I haven't used a "typical mouse" for about 15 years.
Unless you have some supporting evidence that clicking and dragging is more intuitive I would suggest that it's not and that you're just used to doing it because you use a mouse and not a trackpad.
Two finger scrolling is used everywhere else on laptops. It handles horizontal scrolling perfectly.
It shouldn't be hijacked by Google for zoom without even the option to restore the default behaviour.
If Google were "good" at UI they would offer the option of pinch zoom on laptops and just leave scrolling alone.
While I completely agree, implementing pinch-to-zoom on desktop devices in the browser is next to impossible with current web apis (It _is_ viable on mobile devices). Source: I tried.
EDIT: I guess Google Chrome could go all `el.addEventListener('-webkit-pinch-zoom')` on us.
And design ? Google can design well enough. Their interfaces are easy and fun to use. Beyond that, regular people don't care.
I'm coming to the conclusion that some people are more sensitive to design issues than others. If you are then there isn't much choice, Google certainly isn't an option.
Apple has been selling computers that cost more than their competitors for over 40 years. Do you think they have been that successful just based on a “status symbol”?
The average person doesn’t even care about computers that much anymore.
Besides, computer sales are only 11% of their revenue.
The remote is horrible if you watch tv in the dark or have kids. Who makes something that kids throw shatter? Why have a totally symmetric remote design that takes your haptic sense more than 1 second to figure out its orientation. Why is the touch pad always waiting for input...
AAPL seems to have hit its peak in the device market, and can only grow revenues at this point by effectively raising prices on existing customers (that’s what the services category amounts to). This strategy can only take them so far.
Or continue to invent new products (iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Watch, Airpods ...) then iterate on those products over years and years. Also while simultaneously driving their services revenue, which continues to be a growth area for them.
These other devices are all cheaper and less popular than the iPhone. This quarter the category that includes the AirPods and Watch made one fifth what the iPhone did. To contribute 10% of company revenue growth, this category needs to double. Maybe the category has room to double once, but will it 10x over the next five years? You would need performance like that to justify a high PE ratio.
>AAPL seems to have hit its peak in the device market, and can only grow revenues at this point by effectively raising prices on existing customers (that’s what the services category amounts to). This strategy can only take them so far.
Which is inaccurate. They have continued to add new products, like the Watch and AirPods. So when do you think they hit "peak device" ? You mean peak iPhone? No argument from me, they might have. But there are ways to grow revenue without just increasing prices, as those other products have demonstrated. They have also proven that the can grow revenue with their services, which is now a bigger revenue generator than iPhone.
Apple will never get the same P/E love, because they only make like 4 things (Mac, iPhone, iPad, services).
Everyone loves to hate on Apple on multiple fronts (elitist, expensive, over the hill), whereas the hate on Amazon is really about one thing.. that ol "makes no profit" canard.
CLARIFICATION: I’m talking perception, not my beliefs. Uber’s a scam, as far as I can tell, but they will either pull off a miracle or be the biggest Groupon of all time. And Snap isn’t very good at being a public company.
> whereas the hate on Amazon is really about one thing.. that ol "makes no profit" canard.
Ahem [1], and while we're at it, [2]
My criticism to Apple isn't that they're being expensive; it is related to right to repair and their constant efforts to hamper that. Amazon just undercuts everyone, and Turk globalizes cheap workforce. For ridiculous low payment. These are just 2 examples you did not mention. You can read more in the sources below.
People have historically been willing to pay apple more because in part of how seamlessly integrated their products are. I bought a “repairable” android and it was junk / not updated. My old iPhones have kept value far better than friends androids after 3 years. Apple is doing something that preserves phones value (ie, they may actually maintain them for longer with updates etc vs their “repairable” competitors.
And I’ve never had a problem getting my phone repaired
Yeah as an investor I still really like Apple. They have a TON of cash, billions of highly qualified users that they can easily roll new products/services to (iphone owners), and all the while they're frugal and meticulous about how they use it.
I think the stock will pop once news breaks of another breakthrough product...whether its a car or something else.
Amazon makes a very small amount of profit for its sales. If they were forced to split out AWS, they would make no profit. Also a fact. That is a pretty scary place to be.
I wonder if the distribution side of the business will ever become profitable. I know the argument is that once they dominate they can start raising prices but these types of business are inherently low margin, competitors will see their profits as an opportunity.
> AAPL is still undervalued compared to stocks like AMZN. Apple's P/E of 17 is amazing compared to Amazons 78. I'm not really sure why their stock isn't traded with the same enthusiasm that other tech companies see.
I'm not so sure it's useful to compare stock valuations in this way. An assessment of "undervalued" should be based solely on the facts of that specific company, IMO.
Comparing a high-cost consumer electronics company with market dominance but little growth projection to an online retailer with enormous growth makes absolutely no sense. Comparing their P/E makes even less sense.
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.
No apple watch or AirPods, till there was, and guess what Steve Jobs isn't there. Wearables increased by 50% yoy. There are many different areas that Apple will move into, AR, automation, home, still plenty of room for growth
Steve Jobs was not magic, nor is he the only person with vision in the world. Expecting one company to continue to make paradigm breaking technologies every other year isn't realistic.
Because they're dependent on selling hardware, not software. It's not rocket science, hardware doesn't scale as easily as software, so it leads to a smaller multiplier.
AWS is their business and it certainly scales. Their goal in retail is market dominance through convenience and that still costs a ton of money. AWS does not cost a ton of money.
Apple has run out of people to sell iPhones to, Amazon is just getting started ("day one" as Bezos likes to say). P/E is about growth potential and the market is saying Amazon has lots more of it than Apple.
