Apple To Launch Largest Stock Repurchasing Plan In History

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple To Launch Largest Stock Repurchasing Plan In History

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday April 23, 2013 @10:40AM from the not-sure-if-confidence-or-overconfidence dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In conjunction with its earnings report for the second quarter of 2013, Apple issued a press release announcing some major plans for its ever growing stockpile of cash. It is increasing its quarterly dividend payout to investors by 15%. What's more, the company will spend $60 billion in stock repurchases, making it in Apple's words, 'the largest single share repurchase authorization in history.'"

282 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Dumbest idea, ever by faragon · 2013-04-23 10:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

In my opinion, they just will burn their cash. It is inevitable: they must lower device prices, so their shares will fall. No way out.
1. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Kimomaru · 2013-04-23 10:46 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  That, OR they might want to start coming up with some new ideas. Clearly the ship's been without a captain since Jobs passed away. This is TOTALLY part of a Hail Mary. They have no idea how they're going to keep this thing going.
2. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:49 · Score: 0
  
  But they need to do something to stop their share price from plummeting, I bailed quite close to the high because I couldn't see the justification for that price, sure had I held out I could have made an extra $20 a share but a little longer than that would have been nasty :)
  Their products have grown mature now, to continue growth and increasing value they need a new product, not just predictable (and often disappointing) re-hashes of their existing line.
3. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:50 · Score: 0
  
  Or they plan to take the company back private.
4. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by bloodhawk · 2013-04-23 10:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It isn't dumb, I don't like Apple but it is actually a smart move. They need to return shareholder value as their growth proposition going forward is uncertain or potentially even negative. The choices are return shareholder value through dividend and buybacks or watch the stock slide.
5. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Oh my. Here we go again. Apple is going out of business now like Microsoft was suppose to be for the last 15 years?
  
  If I've learned anything here I've learned that the average "geek"* doesn't have the first clue about business.
  
  * I use that term loosely anymore. The geek element certainly has waned over the last few years. I blame KDawson.
6. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 10:57 · Score: 2
  
  What else are they supposed to do with it? Selling hardware at a loss is always a loosing proposition, and there's no way you can spend that amount of money efficiently on R&D. Their only options, really, are sitting on it or giving it to their investors.
7. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  In my opinion, they just will burn their cash. It is inevitable: they must lower device prices, so their shares will fall. No way out.
  Most accurate comment ever. Apple defeated by Android/Linux, who woulda thunkit?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
8. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Apple will never get back to those windfall margins in the phone or tablet space, ever.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
9. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:14 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Translation for those unfamiliar with the drill: Apple shareholders want their money back now because they expect Apple management to steal or waste it otherwise.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
10. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by proverbialcow · 2013-04-23 11:14 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Agreed. Repurchasing and boosting the dividend when the stock traded above $700 might have been a good idea; doing so when it's hovering around $400 with a PEG ratio of 47% is a good idea. Buying back your own stock at a discount to what it's worth, while simultaneously returning cash to shareholders and appeasing a huge PITA activist investor? That's smart.
  
  Financing the buyback with debt is a tiny bit worrisome, but Apple's probably just taking advantage of the low interest rates their high credit rating and hoard of cash afford them.
  
  --
  The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
11. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by sethmeisterg · 2013-04-23 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Got news for ya there, Captain Compost. The iPhone 5 was Jobs's design. How does that fit in with your little troll story?
12. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by bloodhawk · 2013-04-23 11:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It really isn't so much that they are going to waste it (though that is always a concern). investors/shareholders make money from one of 2 ways (like it or not investors are their to make money), either the shares go up in value or they receive an income as dividend from those shares. Apple doesn't have to provide stellar growth, they can continue on with their excellent profit and earnings with no growth, however to do so they need to change the way they are returning value as without growth shareprice will stagnate which means you have just removed the traditional way that Apple investors were getting value from the shares. buybacks and dividend allow investor returns while also bolstering the shareprice through desirability as an investment. What they are doing makes sound business sense even if like me you despise them.
13. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by ArcadeMan · 2013-04-23 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  1. The iPhone 5 was approved by Steve Jobs way before he died.
  2. The iPhone is the right width for the human hand. Any larger and you need two hands to use it. It's a phone, not a tablet.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
14. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-04-23 11:37 · Score: 2
  
  Apple will never get back to those windfall margins in the phone or tablet space, ever.
  They don't need to. If you buy back shares, then the lower margin on the devices equates to an equivalent dividend per share.
15. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by bughunter · 2013-04-23 11:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is one of the most insightful comments I've ever seen attached to a /. story with 'Apple' in the title.
  (I know, that's faint praise...)
  
  --
  I can see the fnords!
16. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  One size doesn't fit all. I have never had anything in that category fit me. Guess that's because I have huge hands and was like the only one who absolutely adored the original xbox controllers.
17. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by AuMatar · 2013-04-23 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  If they had ideas, they wouldn't be doing a share buyback. A share buyback means they have more cash than they have good ways to spend it, so they'll buy shares back to decrease the pool of available shares, thus increasing the ownership percentage of a single share (thus its value). The combination of that plus a dividend increase means that they have more money than they can possibly use.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
18. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Fits perfectly. Things changed after Jobs died. In fact, they changed while he was dying. Top selling phones got bigger and wider. Tim Cook failed to respond. Blaming that on a dead man is a cop out. When you get right down to it, Tim Cook's main superpower would appear to be blame deflection, just as you say.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
19. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by fleebait · 2013-04-23 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  Financing the buyback with debt is a tiny bit worrisome, but Apple's probably just taking advantage of the low interest rates their high credit rating and hoard of cash afford them.
  Short term financing vs. long term financing. Borrowing money today, when they can probably get it somewhere less than 2% interest, vs a future interest of 7% (or more) within the next 5 years, is not a bad bet. It's called "putting the cash to work". Cash just sitting in the bank doesn't make anything.
  Taking this position, if they maxed out their value, they could shut down sales for a year, do research, and still survive. With Apple's strength it is a wise move.
  This is all about good financial management. and nothing about products.
20. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Cinder6 · 2013-04-23 12:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Apple's stock has always been weird. Their P/E ratio is lower than Dell's. Doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not a finance guy.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
21. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Karlt1 · 2013-04-23 12:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It strange that now Slashdot Wisdom(tm) is Apple came out with new ideas every year when SJ was alive.
  Apple's market changing innovations were.....
  1998 - iMac
  2001 - iPod
  2003 - iTunes
  2007 - iPhone
  2010 - iPad
  So, by that pattern, this would be the year that Apple "needs to innovate". But there is no conceivable market larger than the phone market.
22. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Karlt1 · 2013-04-23 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Top selling phones got bigger and wider.
  http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/01/the-5-best-selling-phones-in-the-u-s-are-from-just-2-companies-apple-and-samsung/
23. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Gotta love how apple zealots can state exactly how wide the "correct" human hand is and what the capabilities the "correct" person who might use a phone are. I guess when you are a member of a cult masquerading as a cell phone company this is exactly the "right" kind of group think to have. No room for natural variation or a difference of opinion. If you don't like it the problem is YOU and certainly not the cult of Apple.
24. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Apple's product ideas died with Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is a complete limp wrist. Example brilliant Tim Cook idea: make the new iphone too long and not wide enough, because increasing the horizontal pixel count is way too scary.
  Wow, Apple cultist spinmods really do not like having the obvious pointed out to them. Get over it. Magic Apple died with Steve Jobs. Sunset Apple has arrived.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
25. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Sponge+Bath · 2013-04-23 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Top selling phones got bigger and wider.
  At one point so did suit lapels and blue jean bottoms.
26. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:25 · Score: 0
  
  I use my Galaxy Nexus with one hand just fine. Stop buying into the iPropaganda.
27. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Dunbal · 2013-04-23 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  New ideas? Hell, that hasn't happened yet.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
28. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/04/comscore-february-2013/
  Android subscribers: 51.7%
  iPhone subscribers: 38.9%
  Apple can at best claim a short term reversal of an alarming trend (for it) in the US market at the cost of significantly reduced margins. In other news, Apple is getting hammered in the world market. China is turning into a major disaster for Apple, and will soon be a larger market for smartphones than the US.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
29. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by atheistmonk · 2013-04-23 12:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I have small hands and my Galaxy S2 is very easy to use one handed. I must be doing something wrong to be able to use the phone that is the wrong width for the human hand so easily.
30. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, your idea is the dumbest ever. Apple doesn't need to lower prices, they are still hugely successful at their pricing, that's how they got so much $$$ in the first place, because people will pay.
31. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you Apple cultists are creative. At least there's that. Logic is optional.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
32. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:36 · Score: 2
  
  But there is no conceivable market larger than the phone market.
  Apart from food, water, and air.
  iFood! Milled out of solid aluminum.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
33. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by rjr162 · 2013-04-23 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Weird... because I dont have large hands and the note II fits fine
34. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by PixetaledPikachu · 2013-04-23 12:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Gotta love how apple zealots can state exactly how wide the "correct" human hand is and what the capabilities the "correct" person who might use a phone are. I guess when you are a member of a cult masquerading as a cell phone company this is exactly the "right" kind of group think to have. No room for natural variation or a difference of opinion. If you don't like it the problem is YOU and certainly not the cult of Apple.
  That's not something new. They used to claim that their display has just the perfect amount of pixels for every person on earth, since apparently everyone has the same viewing distance when looking at their phone, anywhere, at any given time
35. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by geekoid · 2013-04-23 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  1) So? Steve Jobs made many, many mistakes.
  2) It's nice the Apple has dictated the corect width for a human hand. If my hand are bigger do I go to the apple store to get the correct size hands, or have the Robot Devil chop them off and mail them in?
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
36. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Sponge+Bath · 2013-04-23 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  You've made 12 posts (so far) on this Apple story alone, with similar numbers in other Apple stories, and you are calling others cultists?
37. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  It's not like Microsoft is thriving currently...
38. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by EkriirkE · 2013-04-23 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  iPhone only brought capacitive/multi touch mainstream, iPad wasn't/isn't novel, just branding successful
  
  --
  from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
39. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by proverbialcow · 2013-04-23 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  That's precisely the point I was trying to make - I guess I didn't do a very good job of it. :)
  
  --
  The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
40. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 13:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like Microsoft is thriving currently...
  with record quarterly profits they aren't failing either.
41. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by jd2112 · 2013-04-23 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  1. The iPhone 5 was approved by Steve Jobs way before he died. 2. The iPhone is the right width for the human hand. Any larger and you need two hands to use it. It's a phone, not a tablet.
  My hands must be larger than I thought. I have no problem using my Galaxy S III with one hand.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
42. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by exomondo · 2013-04-23 13:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  2. The iPhone is the right width for the human hand.
  Because Steve Jobs told you that? Man he should have gotten into the glove business and we could have gotten rid of the silliness of having different 'sizes' and just make the correct size for the human hand.
43. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by ArcadeMan · 2013-04-23 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  You can hold your Galaxy S III with one hand and touch every corner of the display without moving your holding position?
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
44. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Karlt1 · 2013-04-23 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  The original quote was....
  
  Top selling phones got bigger and wider.
  a) So unless the Nexus + Motorola Mobility sold more than Apple, "Google" doesn't make the "top selling" phone.
  b) Are you saying that all Android phones are bigger than the iPhone?
45. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by smash · 2013-04-23 13:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So you're comparing a single vendor (apple) to an entire industry (iPhone + Android - Win Mobile and others are a rounding error).
  And they're still just under 40% of the market.
  Companies in any other market would kill for a 40% market share, yet it's supposed to be the death knell?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
46. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by smash · 2013-04-23 13:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Before iPad, no tablet shipped with full colour, 3d capable GPU, motion sensor, GPS, compass and 10 hour battery life in a single device, that weighed less than anything of comparable size. To say it was merely branding successful is kinda... well.. flat out lying?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
47. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by smash · 2013-04-23 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  Along that line of thinking, maybe apple has been holding out on new products, waiting for the stock price to crash before buying it back cheap and launching the new shiny?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
48. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by smash · 2013-04-23 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  "They must lower device prices"
  Why? They became bigger than both Microsoft and Google combined by specifically NOT selling at the low end?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
49. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mysidia · 2013-04-23 14:31 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, they just will burn their cash. It is inevitable: they must lower device prices, so their shares will fall. No way out.
  Not necessarily.... if the lower price is more optimal than the current price, lowering the price may net them greater profit due to increased sales (although smaller margin per sale).
  They might capture the market still willing to pay more, by offering a 'better' more appealing version still at the higher price.
  Their stock price could in fact go up
50. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by White+Flame · 2013-04-23 14:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  2. The iPhone is the right width for the human hand. Any larger and you need two hands to use it. It's a phone, not a tablet.
  Japanese gamers complained that the Playstation controller is too big. American gamers complained it's too small. What's this "the human hand" business about?
51. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by White+Flame · 2013-04-23 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  The iPad was actually able to lock in cheap component suppliers to give it a light form factor while still being powerful enough, and that was right before prices started to go up due to various factors. It really was the one time that Apple was able to undercut its competitors, as most everybody else was shipping $2,000 laptop-sized tablets.
  I question any of the other "achievements" granted to Apple, but the iPad was the one real one.
52. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mysidia · 2013-04-23 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  The combination of that plus a dividend increase means that they have more money than they can possibly use.
  Naw... it means they think their shareholders will benefit more from using that bit of cash in these ways than reinvesting that bit of cash in the business.
  Interest rates are so darn low right now, that holding onto cash not needed immediately in the short term is possibly a bad idea.... finance that growth using debt, if possible. Give shareholders the cash back, so they can either invest in more shares -- or buy something else.
  Either way it gets away from this issue, of the big cash reserve being eroded by massive inflation levels.
53. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't Steve Job already answer that? You're not holding it right...
54. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 14:48 · Score: 0
  
  Something smells fishy with this announcement. Perhaps the books are... Cooked ?
55. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mysidia · 2013-04-23 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  But there is no conceivable market larger than the phone market.
  It could be the iCommunicator, or the iText
  A simple feature "phone" option.
  And an option with the 'phone' capability removed that still has SMS texting and 4G support.
  It's just a historical accident that the iPhone is a phone... people carry these "smart phones" around all the time, but they don't talk on them -- they surf the web, they send/receive text messages.
  Voice comms over GSM are an afterthought, obsoleted by Facetime; so we don't need our personal communication devices to be called phones anymore; they're really just iPads..
  So we could rename the iPhone to the iPad Nano, as well.
  And develop a complementary addon set of products; the iKey (authentication device to unlock your front door and start your car), and iWallet; a wallet-sized touch screen device that acts similar to a credit card; you type a PIN code and swipe, or it prints out a little slip of digital paper, or displays a QR bar code with the Bitcoin ID and private key for this transaction, etc, etc, and allows transaction completion using NFC RFID or other wireless communications....
56. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by AuMatar · 2013-04-23 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Its always cheaper to expand via cash than debt, even with rates this low. Cash has a 0% interest rate (in fact, it has negative the rate of inflation), debt has a positive one. A buyback means that they don't have immediate (or short to mid term) uses for that money.
  Don't get me wrong, I admire the decision. Much better than sitting on cash MS style. But as an investor it tells me that they don't have big ideas and that I'd rather put new money elsewhere.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
57. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Sir+Holo · 2013-04-23 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  I have held AAPL for a long time, and have (on paper) benefitted from their meteoric stock-price rise.
  
  I also own GE. Staid, solid, consistent. Their stock price does not change much, but they do pay a dividend every quarter.
  
  AAPL is (possibly) at a point where they have to decide which path they choose to take. They can pay huge dividends and have a stable stock price, or they can "act like a startup," as they have recently, and invade new markets that they consider stagnant, and can potentially have a significant impact in, based on their core competencies (yuk, market-speak) of refining user interfaces to their utmost simplicity, thereby upsetting the sleepy corps that had previously dominated that market. We shall see.
58. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by kelemvor4 · 2013-04-23 15:16 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like Microsoft is thriving currently...
  Actually, that's exactly what it's like.
  Citation: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT+Key+Statistics
59. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by toddestan · 2013-04-23 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but what about [insert long list of features that the iPad doesn't have]?
60. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  I can with my normal holding position, but of course steve jobs said that's not right.
61. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by phantomfive · 2013-04-23 16:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Financing the buyback with debt is a tiny bit worrisome,
  I'm willing to bet they are doing that because a good portion of their cash hoard is outside the United States, and if they brought it back in, they'd have to pay taxes on it.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
62. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by jjjhs · 2013-04-23 16:02 · Score: 0
  
  They can always slash the cost of their crap. They got all that money from the huge profit margins using the same Chinese labor and parts as every other manufacturer.
63. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by smash · 2013-04-23 16:17 · Score: 2
  
  What about them? The iPad's success has proven that the feature set selected by Apple to include was market-relevant, and the number of ground-breaking applications for it have proven the feature set to be technically relevant also.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
64. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Congratulations on phrasing your question in such a way as to earn the coveted rating of -1, Flamebait | Troll | Stupid, all at the same time.
  Hint: unless you move your holding position, your thumb covers a 90-degree arc because it rotates around the joint at the base of the thumb, so unless your phone screen diagonal is smaller than the length of your thumb, there are parts of the screen you can't hit with it.
  If you allow movement of the quarter palm of your hand - which I designate as "moving your holding position", because it shifts the phone in your hand - it's relatively easy to cover the entirety of even a large screen with your thumb, since you have X/Y axis movement of the thumb base joint along with the rotation around the Z axis. I would guess that most people would only have trouble with this on a Samsung Note, unless they have seriously 8-year-old girl-sized hands.
65. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by jd2112 · 2013-04-23 16:26 · Score: 1
  
  You can hold your Galaxy S III with one hand and touch every corner of the display without moving your holding position?
  No, but I can reach enough of the screen to do everything I would normally need to do.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
66. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by bar-agent · 2013-04-23 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  Selling hardware at a loss is always a loosing proposition
  I dunno, the market might be tightening up. Personally, I'm riveted by the turns that the economy has been taking. Granted, we were all screwed by the banks, but the recovery has been nuts. Everyone's been really driven, and I think we're really threading the needle, here.
  In fact, I'm going to go mix up a screwdriver and drill down into some quarterly statements.
  
  --
  i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
67. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by qwidjib0 · 2013-04-23 16:54 · Score: 1
  
  So, by that pattern, this would be the year that Apple "needs to innovate".
  http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130423061153-64875646-why-apple-s-iwatch-will-change-the-world You were saying?
68. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by lxs · 2013-04-23 17:51 · Score: 0
  
  Actually they are, but when you have billions in the bank this decline can take decades.
69. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Apple's product ideas died with Steve Jobs. Tim Cook is a complete limp wrist. Example brilliant Tim Cook idea: make the new iphone too long and not wide enough, because increasing the horizontal pixel count is way too scary.
  Wow, Apple cultist spinmods really do not like having the obvious pointed out to them. Get over it. Magic Apple died with Steve Jobs. Sunset Apple has arrived.
  And if you have invested your money in Apple stock then I can tell you with some confidence that your investment is in danger. Largely because of Linux.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
70. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 18:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm having fun. I get a big charge out of watching a morally corrupt organization weaken and wither, to the general benefit of society. Honestly, there are times when I thought I would never see this day.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
71. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  Right.
  The only thing i'm using my phone for is making calls. It's too small to surf the web ( i mean, really, I'll have time to surf the web when i'm sitting in front of a larger screen, why would i care to do it with a stupid tiny screen? )
  Basically I don't want a carry-around computer. A simple communication device is enough. Make it watch size so my pockets have room for other things. Make the battery last forever. Make it durable. I'll pay $1500 for a device that meets the specs.
72. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mysidia · 2013-04-23 19:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  debt has a positive one
  After considering current inflation, the interest rate is essentially zero...
  A buyback means that they don't have immediate (or short to mid term) uses for that money.
  More like, they don't have immediate more compelling need for that money, and they feel their stock is so undervalued, that it is the most fiscally responsible choice for the use of that money.
  But as an investor it tells me that they don't have big ideas and that I'd rather put new money elsewhere.
  They may have big ideas that are already more than adequately financed, and/or that they don't require all that cash for; or that are more risky.
  When you have a big idea; squandering an infinite amount of cash (however much you happen to have) on it, is not necessarily the right approach -- there comes a point, where returns are diminishing, and excessive investment into the big idea (even if it will be the best thing since sliced bread) just serves to reduce returns.
  If they see that for now their excess cash has exceeded what their work in progress demands, then they could still have an excellent number of high impact ideas about to roll out, but still not require the insanely large pool of cash they have at hand.
73. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mjwx · 2013-04-23 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  2. The iPhone is the right width for the human hand. Any larger and you need two hands to use it. It's a phone, not a tablet.
  Which Iphone?
  
  The 4:3 or the 16:9?
  
  Because they are different widths so only one can be right.
  
  Realistically, forcing all applications to have the back button in the upper LH corner blows your theory out of the water. You pretty much have to use two hands to go back. Especially if your right hand is dominant (people make phone calls with their non dominant hand, they use their phone as a web browser/application platform using their dominant hand).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
74. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mjwx · 2013-04-23 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Financing the buyback with debt is a tiny bit worrisome,
  Financing the buyback with debt is to dodge tax.
  
  FED: You earned 100 million in profit this year.
  APPL: Yes but we have this 60 million of liability on the books.
  FED: well OK then, I guess we can only tax 40 million.
  APPL: erm... we have other deductions.
  FED: How much.
  APPL: something something 40 million.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
75. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 19:45 · Score: 0
  
  Before iPad, no tablet shipped with full colour, 3d capable GPU, motion sensor, GPS, compass and 10 hour battery life in a single device, that weighed less than anything of comparable size. To say it was merely branding successful is kinda... well.. flat out lying?
  You are ruining his droidgasm.
76. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by rtb61 · 2013-04-23 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  Disagreed. Stock buybacks are mostly used to fraudulently manipulate stock prices whilst insiders sell stock. Basically insiders wishing to bale (executive stock options) use inside information to align their sales with the buys (insiders selling is always a warning sign) to ensure prices do not drop, when they sell (they get to sell at a high price and pretend nothing is wrong). It all boils down to a company whose executives have no real future plan and know their stock options will eventually collapse and are seeking a way out, basically screwing over the majority of investors. It also can hold the price up when dividends are being issued, especially when a company stock price is so bound to over priced fad products where any kind of negative image can cripple sales.
  Financing the buy back in this case is a disgusting blatant cheat based around keeping profits hidden in offshore tax havens, the owed tax dollars which they claim in valuation of the company (without declaring it as a debt) while cheating all other tax payers. So make no mistake crooked all around and the IRS and the SEC should bend them over to teach them what for, except of course it is all crooked as hell at the top and governments across the globe turn a blind eye.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
77. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  It's not like Microsoft is thriving currently...
  Is this the famous filter bubble? http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/04/microsoft-posts-record-third-quarter-revenue-in-spite-of-flat-windows-numbers/
78. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  Actually they are, but when you have billions in the bank this decline can take decades.
  Especially since they are not declining, but growing (they just posted another record quarterly result). Then the decline really takes a while.
79. Re: Dumbest idea, ever by Karlt1 · 2013-04-23 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  So posting an article about an unreleased and unannounced product is proof of what exactly?
80. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Stuarticus · 2013-04-23 22:22 · Score: 2
  
  I also have the S2 and I get quite a bit of thumb strain trying to reach the top right corner of the phone. So anecdotes all round?
  
  --
  If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
81. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Monoman · 2013-04-23 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  It is more like
  2001 - iPod
  2007 - iPhone
  IMHO the iMac, iTunes, and iPad were not truly innovative. They were incremental developments of existing products.
  The issues Apple will face are
  1. Staying ahead in areas where it is already ahead
  2. Catching up fast enough in areas where it is behind
  3. Jumping ahead by developing another true innovation.
  These 3 things get harder to do as you grow market share and release more products. It is hard to stay on top forever. Many have tried and they have all failed so far ... or enough time hasn't passed yet. ;-)
  
  --
  Keep the Classic Slashdot.
82. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Microsoft's stock price is roughly $30/share today. Their last stock split was roughly a decade ago and since then It has traded in a range between 37 (123%) and (51%). In that time they have done a lot but nothing that Wall Street perticularly values. They paid a special dividend in 2004 of $3 but since then have paid a quarterly dividend amounting to about .75%. This totals $4.56 or (~15%) excluding the $3 'special' dividend and 7.56 or (25%). Not exactly stellar performance for investment even considering the global economic climate.
  When you account for equity risk, it's actually a terrible long term investment. A virtually risk free 10 year treasury note today is paying about a 21% net return 10 years ago, you would have done even better. They may be fundamentally sound, and not in desperation to avoid collapse, but do you really expect Microsoft to use sound leadership and product decisions to generate value for the shareholder. Windows 8 and Windows Phone and the Surface and the Zune all say no.
83. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Kimomaru · 2013-04-24 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect you're upset because you're an Apple fanboy - and that's fine.
  
  1) Apple didn't issue dividends while Jobs was alive. You can read into why he didn't do it any way as you like. Now they are.
  
  2) Job's tenure was marked with a steady stream on new products, not all of them great but the ones that were usually did very well in the market because they'd always been done poorly (music players) by everyone else (and, of course, there's also his legacy in the business of downloadable music and movies). It's not that there weren't smartphones or computers (there were), they just hadn't been done well. Since he passed away, really there haven't been any new ideas except reiterations of what's done well before.
  
  You're position is puzzling.
84. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Ash-Fox · 2013-04-24 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  2. The iPhone is the right width for the human hand. Any larger and you need two hands to use it. It's a phone, not a tablet.
  So what you're saying is, my hand isn't human?
  On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
85. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Ash-Fox · 2013-04-24 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  I can with my normal holding position, but of course steve jobs said that's not right.
  You're holding it wrong!
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
86. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Ash-Fox · 2013-04-24 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Before iPad, no tablet shipped with full colour, 3d capable GPU, motion sensor, GPS, compass and 10 hour battery life in a single device, that weighed less than anything of comparable size. To say it was merely branding successful is kinda... well.. flat out lying?
  My old HP iPaq running Windows Mobile did?
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
87. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  LMOL bone up on the stock market Potsy. Investors have been screaming for dividends for decades. They see the pile of cash and scream give it to the shareholders. Paying dividends and buying back stock is what publicly traded companies do.
  
  Clueless post.
88. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Potsy Potsy Potsy...any corporation sitting on a pile of cash and NOT paying out dividends will start to pay out. That is unless you don't want to attract investors.
  
  You need to read your post, "...there haven't been any new ideas except reiterations of what's done well before." That's exactly what Apple did take existing ideas and reiterate them...iPod (mp3 player), iPhone (cell phone), iPad (tablet)...so no new ideas. Old ideas just repackaged. Hardly earth shattering.
89. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Financing stock buyback with debt is very common. Alot of corporations do that.
90. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:02 · Score: 1
  
  No it's a common practice.
91. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Call me when you learn something about finance. MOST COMPANIES FINANCE BUYBACKS WITH DEBT.
92. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  LMOL another clueless moron who knows nothing about finance.
93. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by sg_oneill · 2013-04-24 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I sort of think though that having a hundred or so bil sitting in the bank makes for a hell of a warchest in case shit gets ugly.
  Apples crashed before, notably with the circumstance of "Steve wasnt there". And he's not there again. But unlike last time, Apple has the capability of lasting *decades* of being barely profitable without having to make ugly decisions that could potentially kill the company, by virtue of a ridiculous warchest.
  And that means apple can now play a very long game with its opponents, something it can't do if it just gives the money to its shareholders.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
94. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  Why in the world do they need to make this choice? The have so much money that they need to return some of it to shareholders. But this doesn't at all preclude "acting like a startup". They have plenty of funding to do that as well (especially since most of the really large expenses will be related to manufacturing the product - and that money is overseas). No startup reasonably would need more than $1 billion to design and ready for manufacturing a product. Even after subtracting $100 billion, they still have $45 billion left with lots more coming in ($9.5 billion more this quarter).
  What Apple is limited by is more the amount of time that the executive team has. This is the reason they don't do 5000 different products. To maintain their quality, a new product must go through a fairly limited number of people. No amount of money can really change this. And hiring a lot of people to do this job will dilute what makes Apple so valuable - the high quality of their products (and the ensuing customer satisfaction) doesn't happen by accident. (And yes, they make mistakes such as Maps, but on average they do pretty well.)
95. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 02:52 · Score: 2
  
  But as an investor it tells me that they don't have big ideas and that I'd rather put new money elsewhere.
  They may have big ideas that are already more than adequately financed, and/or that they don't require all that cash for; or that are more risky.
  
  IANAE but it seems to me that on the one hand it's good news because Apple is "doing the right thing" and on the other hand it's bad news because Apple does not have big ideas that require large amounts of capital. Since any company not experiencing endless growth is a failure in the eyes of investors and vultures, Apple's failure to take this opportunity to swallow a competitor or expand into a new market is a negative sign.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
96. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  My old HP iPaq running Windows Mobile did?
  I presume you are talking about an xScale-powered palmtop of some sort? You didn't bother to mention a model number. I had an H2215 which had none of those features, and it had the most powerful processor used in the line (PXA255, IIRC) and it didn't get 10 hours without the extended battery. You could only even stand by for maybe 36 hours with the stock pack. Also, the software stack was beyond miserable in every way (volatile storage!) and the only replacement was OpenEmbedded-based Linux with a pocket Qt or GTK environment running X and with pretty much no free memory.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
97. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Japanese gamers complained that the Playstation controller is too big. American gamers complained it's too small. What's this "the human hand" business about?
  /me salutes "Big Duke"
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
98. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 03:03 · Score: 0
  
  Inflation causes the value of sitting cash to go down. How is that a 'negative' interest rate? You've got it backwards. Cash has an interest rate equal to inflation. And, by the way, the government does not report inflation accurately, so you've got no idea what that rate is.
99. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  iFood! Milled out of solid aluminum.
  Finally I understand what inorganic food would look like — shiny, anyway.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
100. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Kimomaru · 2013-04-24 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, I don't think so, they weren't repackaging anything. They weren't taking the crappy MP3 players of 2000 and rebranding them. They made them usable. Not earth shattering stuff, sure, but why wasn't ANYBODY doing them right. So, whatever, I don't care - the argument's stupid. There's a big difference in how the ship is being steered now that Job's is gone and anyone who doesn't see it can't really be helped. The stock price, however, is a reflection of it.
101. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by gnasher719 · 2013-04-24 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  Actually they are, but when you have billions in the bank this decline can take decades.
  And when you add $10 billion to the bank in the last quarter alone, bankruptcy will take even longer :-)
  
  According to many, Apple makes about 70% of all profits in the phone market (Apple + Samsung make about 102%). More in the tablet market. And amazingly, Apple actually makes 45% of all profits in the PC market!
102. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Penguinisto · 2013-04-24 03:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Umm, wait a sec:
  1) Apple has paid dividends before - even when Jobs was quite alive.
  2) You're looking at the wrong time scale. OSX and the iPod came out in 2001. MacBook Air The iPhone was launched in 2007, and the MacBook Air in 2008. The iPad showed up in 2010. On that kind of scale, Apple could wait until 2015 and it would still keep to its innovation calendar just fine.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
103. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by gnasher719 · 2013-04-24 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  If they had ideas, they wouldn't be doing a share buyback. A share buyback means they have more cash than they have good ways to spend it,
  
  When Schwarzenegger went into politics, some people complained that he had more muscle than brains. Well, he had more muscle than Einstein had brains, so not really a problem.
  
  Now they have far more than $100bn in the bank. Since you complain that they can't think of good ways of spending that money, you can surely give some examples where a company made good use just of ONE billion dollars? Facebook used $1bn to buy a company worth $100 million. HP is right now in court about their last big purchase, claiming they were scammed, and definitely claiming that they lost a few billion. There's Microsoft and Skype. Apple has been investing in manufacturers and used the money to buy technology that they are actually using, but there is just a limit to the money you can spend if you expect a return from the investment.
104. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Kimomaru · 2013-04-24 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  They could. I'm saying they're not going to do it. We'll see.
105. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Kimomaru · 2013-04-24 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  So, according to your source, Apple stopped paying a dividend between 1996 and 2011 (basically, Jobs' tenure when he returned to Apple.) So, no.
106. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by phantomfive · 2013-04-24 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  So is having a cash hoard outside the US
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
107. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by geminidomino · 2013-04-24 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Not earth shattering stuff, sure, but why wasn't ANYBODY doing them right.
  
  What utter rot. The pre-apple MP3 players were MORE usable than the stupid thumb-wheel, since they emulated the same buttons that people had seen on walkmans and tape decks for decades.
  What Apple did was take "geek toys" and market them to the mundanes, and made a killing at it.
108. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Ash-Fox · 2013-04-24 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I presume you are talking about an xScale-powered palmtop of some sort? You didn't bother to mention a model number.
  Don't remember the model numbers honestly, I also had a few iPaqs overtime. I do remember playing a self compiled version of glfrontier (m68k asm converted to c code and wrapped inside an OpenGL interface) that made use of OpenGL APIs that were executed by the GPU (if you made it execute via software rendering only, it was quite terrible).
  
  You could only even stand by for maybe 36 hours with the stock pack.
  Okay?
  
  Also, the software stack was beyond miserable in every way (volatile storage!) and the only replacement was OpenEmbedded-based Linux with a pocket Qt or GTK environment running X and with pretty much no free memory.
  I never ran Linux on any of my iPaqs, I suspect stuff like the GPS would have never worked on it.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
109. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  You could only even stand by for maybe 36 hours with the stock pack.
  Okay?
  That's pretty pathetic for a handheld. A week would be better.
  
  I never ran Linux on any of my iPaqs, I suspect stuff like the GPS would have never worked on it.
  It probably would have, because NMEA.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
110. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 10:00 · Score: 0
  
  Scroll down the page a bit... ;)
111. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Not an apple shareholder but I think I can speak for them "FUCK THAT". why would they want Apple to hold onto THEIR investment money. You don't horde investor money just because you think you may fuck the company and need it. In those circumstances Apple should be doing two things, stopping the buyback as it has no faith in their company and secondly providing a 1 time special payment to shareholders to reduce the cash pile. companies should NEVER be stockpiling cash because things are going to go bad, it stinks of horrible investment practises and really poor business strategy.
112. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 12:16 · Score: 0
  
  It strange that now Slashdot Wisdom(tm) is Apple came out with new ideas every year when SJ was alive.
  Apple's market changing innovations were.....
  1998 - iMac
  2001 - iPod
  2003 - iTunes
  2007 - iPhone
  2010 - iPad
  So, by that pattern, this would be the year that Apple "needs to innovate". But there is no conceivable market larger than the phone market.
  Except the TV market
113. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  You don't look at stock price to see the health of a company, that only shows current market sentiment and neglects prior over or under pricing (in microsofts case they were massively overpriced for a long time, they are now slightly underpriced). It isn't MS's fault that for the last 10 years people were paying more than double the true value of its shares. So while share price has stagnated, the company has actually massively grown and prospered in the last decade.
114. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  That would actually be a really lousy reason. Buying back your own stock to appease shareholders when future outlook is uncertain is just stupid.
  As a thought experiment, what if Apple was using the cash to buy stock in another company that had an uncertain or even negative growth proposition?
  However, given that share buyback is pretty much the only legal form of insider trading, I suspect they think the share is undervalued and this makes it a very smart move indeed.
115. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 21:21 · Score: 0
  
  2003 - iTunes
  ...
  So, by that pattern, this would be the year that Apple "needs to innovate". But there is no conceivable market larger than the phone market.
  Let's just hope it's not another iTunes innovation, then, shall we? That was one piece of software the world could have lived without ... :)
  (I'm guessing you meant commercial online music and video downloads; but all I could think of was the horrible interface ...)
116. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by shellbeach · 2013-04-24 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  What's more concerning is that Tim Cook just came out and said that Apple wouldn't be considering larger screen sizes in the foreseeable future. I'm not entirely sure what I think about 5" phone screens either, but trying to deny they're not popular is as stupid as trying to deny that 7" tablet screen sizes aren't popular.
  It seems too me that ever since the iPhone 4 Apple has reacted to the loss of its market share by not daring to change anything. The phone design is still the same (nearly three years old now, and it wasn't even a very attractive or practical design to begin with) and the screen is the same width (which feels too small and cramped to me, now that I'm used to larger Android screens). It's like they're caught in the headlights and don't dare move, not realising that standing still is what's killing them.
117. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mysidia · 2013-04-25 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  Since any company not experiencing endless growth is a failure in the eyes of investors and vultures, Apple's failure to take this opportunity to swallow a competitor or expand into a new market is a negative sign.
  Since no product expands infinitely in the real world, it makes sense that they would develop new products.
  The cash they actually do have might be too small to expand into new markets with acceptable risk.
  Swallowing a competitor, only works if you actually have a competitor that you can swallow, that is a financially responsible choice. Open source competitors aren't easy to deal with -- swallow one, another springs up. Acquiring more patents is a better idea. Speaking of patents...
  I think so far, all Apple's like-product competitors are Android-device selling companies they are in the process of attempting to stop through the use of litigation.
  And then there's Microsoft, which they wouldn't want to swallow up, because it would come with all this regulatory baggage. More financially beneficial to be as monopoly-like as possible, without being regulated like a monopoly :)
  Swallowing up other companies is great, if they have better big ideas than you... but if they don't, then swallowing them up takes resources that could be yielded to investors instead.
  If the other companies have a good product, Apple can just sort of copy it, like they did with incorporating Windows 7 into OS X (such as Spotlight, based on start menu search), and the dock based on taskbar pinning, and OS X dashboard, based on Windows sidebar/widgets, right?
  Acquisitions aren't necessarily required to expand into more markets. :)
118. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-25 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  Oh my. Here we go again. Apple is going out of business now like Microsoft was suppose to be for the last 15 years?
  If I've learned anything here I've learned that the average "geek"* doesn't have the first clue about business.
  * I use that term loosely anymore. The geek element certainly has waned over the last few years. I blame KDawson.
  Nothing new here. John Sculley saved apple and the share price rose 50% which geeks see as a bad thing because to do so he had to remove their idol.
119. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-25 11:16 · Score: 0
  
  Which Iphone?
  The 4:3 or the 16:9?
  Because they are different widths so only one can be right.
  Er, hate to break it to you champ, but the 16:9 iPhone 5 screen is in fact the exact same width as the 4:3 iPhone 4/4S, whether measured in pixels or millimeters. It's the height which changed.
120. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by mjwx · 2013-04-25 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Call me when you learn something about finance. MOST COMPANIES FINANCE BUYBACKS WITH DEBT.
  No shit.
  
  Because it is such an effective tax dodge.
  
  Debt == liability. Liabilities are not taxable in most countries, in fact they are tax deductible in many cases.
  
  Call me when _YOU_ learn something about finance.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
121. Re:Dumbest idea, ever by smash · 2013-04-28 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  Everything in the computing landscape since the 1940s is an incremental development of an existing product...
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Could have bought Apple stock by mederbil · 2013-04-23 10:44 · Score: 3, Funny

But I'm glad I invested in Bitcoin.
1. Re:Could have bought Apple stock by Rogerborg · 2013-04-24 01:04 · Score: 0
  
  I used to be a Bitcoin investor like you, then I took an Apple to the knee.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Points at Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:45 · Score: 0

Hideki!
Why? by Hentes · 2013-04-23 10:48 · Score: 1

Why do they increase the divident if they want to purchase their stock? They are driving up the price they will have to pay.
1. Re:Why? by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-04-23 10:50 · Score: 2
  
  Do the executives get paid in or own any stock?
2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  Shareholders money is still shareholders money.
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Dividends encourage people to own stocks for longer periods of time, same as stocks which don't split. The buying back of shares means that the money management thinks that the price of the stocks is less than what it should be.
  Either way is potentially a good idea, but honestly I don't follow Apple closely enough to know if it makes any sense. I personally think that Apple is even now way too pricey given the uncertain future and need for them to innovate into new areas to keep growing.
4. Re:Why? by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 11:00 · Score: 2
  
  Repurchasing stock is meant to increase shareholder value, raising the dividend is meant to do the same. Apple investors have been asking when they will get to see some of the money Apple's been making. This is all meant to keep their investors happy.
5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't trying to buy X number of stock, they are trying to spend X amount dollars (returning $ to shareholders).
  Increased price just means they will buy back less stock with same amount of $, which is fine because the number of shares
  only matters if you are trying to change the ownership structure of a company that you are taking over, which isn't the case here.
  Both stock repurchase and dividend increase both do this, and doing them both is just averaging the approaches,
  as well as giving an indication that the future profits released as dividends will be baselined 15% above current levels
  (total value, so in future dividend per share will be further inflated for reduced numbers of shares after buy-back)
6. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It is a myth that dividends drive up the price of stock. The simple relation is this: after the dividend is paid, the company no longer has the money so the stock is worth less. You can easily verify this, just look at the price of any stable company on the ex div date. It will be lower by roughly the dividend.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
7. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Repurchasing stock is meant to increase shareholder value, raising the dividend is meant to do the same.
  The latter is completely wrong (other than tax treatment, dividends have a neutral effect on shardholder value). The former is correct only because a company acting rationally will only purchase its own stock if it is confident that the stock is undervalued. It is far from clear to me that Apple's stock is undervalued.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:38 · Score: 0
  
  Oh for god's sake, what? "They're giving away part of the company so it becomes worth less!" or something?
  The ex-dividend price drop is the mirror of the prior jump for the effective dividend date. People will move on a stock for the dividend, and many already planning to sell will hang on until the dividend date and THEN sell, just to have that much more in their pockets. It's SELLING pressure that moves the price down in the vast majority of cases, not anything to do with the actual VALUE of the dividend.
  Fuck.
9. Re:Why? by Alomex · 2013-04-23 11:47 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You are wrong. Stocks that pay dividends show this wave pattern where the price rises just before the dividend as it approaches. However this crest pattern does not preclude nor negate a long term gain in the stock price.
10. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 11:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If a stock rises as the dividend date gets closer, purely because of the dividend then those new buyers are just gullible, and the everybody who failed to value the company accurately is just stupid. Proof: if we could rely on a stock price increasing just before the dividend then we would bid up the price right now, well before the dividend. And so the stock would not rise in advance of the dividend because it was already fully valued. See?
  If you don't see, then I have a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
11. Re:Why? by 0123456 · 2013-04-23 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Proof: if we could rely on a stock price increasing just before the dividend then we would bid up the price right now, well before the dividend.
  And how do you plan to do that?
  OK, you buy a bunch of shares today and push the pirce up. Then the price starts to fall as you stop buying. Now you have to keep buying more to keep the price high, and try to dump them all shortly after the dividend, when everyone else is.
  In which alternate reality does this make any sense?
12. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:04 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If a stock rises as the dividend date gets closer, purely because of the dividend then those new buyers are just gullible, and the everybody who failed to value the company accurately is just stupid. Proof: if we could rely on a stock price increasing just before the dividend then we would bid up the price right now, well before the dividend. And so the stock would not rise in advance of the dividend because it was already fully valued. See?
  It is a mystery to me why somebody with mod points would feel offended by having basic financial facts explained to them.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
13. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:06 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Wow, this is weird. Apple spinmods modding down anybody who explains that dividends do not drive up a stock price, they do the opposite?
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
14. Re:Why? by Alomex · 2013-04-23 12:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  , purely because of the dividend then those new buyers are just gullible,
  
  Nope. The dividend is the reward for holding the stock for a full quarter. Thus the stock price at the beginning of the quarter would be the amount that makes the dividend comparable to the interest rate the stock price would earn if it owned corporate debt.
  However as the date of the dividend approaches the former owner wants a larger part of this reward because it held the stock for most of the quarter, while the new holder naturally expects less of it.
  In the extreme, if I buy the stock a second before the dividend is issued I would get a hefty return for having done nothing unless the price rose.
  Your proof is all wrong because it fails to consider the cost of holding the stock instead of say corporate debt.
15. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 12:40 · Score: 2
  
  What I described has a simple, two word name: efficient market. Say, did you ever read a finance textbook? Or try wikipedia/a.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
16. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:48 · Score: 0
  
  You are one stubborn ignorant fellow. Let me try one last time. Suppose I hold the title of of a 30 year bond debt that pays at the end. The bond is for $1000 and in 30 years time I get a one time payment of say $1500.
  On the day of issue it trades at $1000 and as the payment day approaches the price rises towards $1500. This is what an efficient market would do. The difference of $500 is the risk of the debtor defaulting on the debt plus the cost of capital. As the day of payment approaches and the debtor is still a healthy ongoing concern the risk of default goes down as well as the cost of capital (since the capital is held for a shorter time period) and hence the price rises.
17. Re:Why? by mysidia · 2013-04-23 15:10 · Score: 1
  
  What I described has a simple, two word name: efficient market. Say, did you ever read a finance textbook?
  Apparently you missed the "Just kidding" section, or the part, where they actually explain, that in the real world, there is actually no such thing as a truly efficient market. There are some cases where market behavior is close to that of what an efficient market would be deemed to be, however, there are massively many counterexamples.
18. Re:Why? by mysidia · 2013-04-23 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. The dividend is the reward for holding the stock for a full quarter. Thus the stock price at the beginning of the quarter would be the amount that makes the dividend comparable to the interest rate the stock price would earn if it owned corporate debt.
  Different investors are going to view this differently, and in some sense... it depends if the dividend is a sharing of quarterly profit, something like an interest payment.... or an actual capital distribution that lowers the holders' cost basis in the stock and has different tax implications.
  While long term holders may view it as a 'reward'; the company is actually paying money from their coffers, and after they pay the dividend out, the stock shares do actually represent a smaller percentage of the value; while the corresponding dividend represents another portion of the investor value.
  So it makes perfect sense that the stock price dips after ex dividend, because some of the company's value has been moved out of the company's stock, and into this dividend payment.
  That explains a decrease in stock price after ex dividend. Although you can't really exploit that dip necessarily through trading: if you short the stock, you wind up owing a substitute fee to cover the dividend (which eliminates your profit from shorting), if you sold your shares before the dip, you lose the dividend too (which eliminates your profit from selling).
  I don't think you can be assured of a run up in price ahead of the ex dividend... if you could, savvy arbitrage folks would exploit that through shorting, before ex dividend, which would tend to nullify that effect.
19. Re:Why? by Alomex · 2013-04-23 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you can be assured of a run up in price ahead of the ex dividend... if you could, savvy arbitrage folks would exploit that through shorting, before ex dividend, which would tend to nullify that effect.
  
  The run up is such that exactly matches the cost of shorting (borrowing the shares). That is the mistake that you and the OP keep on making: there is a cost of capital to exploit the run up in price, so it matches exactly that of the run up. Since the cost of capital for an instant is nearly zero, the run up is nearly exactly equal to the dividend just before the dividend payment is issued.
20. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. And my entire point is that whoever is counting on an inefficient market to somehow support Apple's stock price is a fool.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
21. Re:Why? by Tough+Love · 2013-04-23 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  The dividend is the reward for holding the stock for a full quarter.
  If you could rely on that then you would be rich instead of just some random schmuck posting bad financial advice on Slashdot.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
22. Re:Why? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-04-23 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Who knew there were so many Apple shareholders on here :)
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect. The person who receives the dividend only has to have the stock before the ex-div date not the 'full quarter' as you state.
  There are many reasons why a stock might 'uptick' before the ex-div date. Dividends are taxed differently and so a lot of pension funds/banks etc want dividend income vs capital gains. This is especially true for banks as they can claim this as TEB (http://www.ehow.com/info_10050513_taxable-equivalent-basis-mean.html)
  In your example "If I buy the stock a second before the dividend is issued..." you are impacting supply and demand.
24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  Your argument works in both ways. If management is confident that the company is rationally bankcrupt they may still pay a dividend and return value to the shareholders from a company of zero worth.
  Think of certain banks.
  It is far from clear to me that Apple's bancrupt, though.
25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  That's how I view it. Dividends are a way to reward investors who hold onto the stock instead of trying to make money on the highs and lows. If the share price dips after a dividend payout, it is because traders are viewing it as an asset transfer from the company to 3rd parties.
  Apple is doing the share repurchase to pump up their share price because the Wall Street minions have been complaining about the performance of their stock price. Taking $60B of stock out of circulation drives up the price of the remaining shares and boosts EPS numbers.
26. Re:Why? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  " dividends have a neutral effect on shardholder value"
  
  Based on what data? Offering a dividend and increasing the dividend payout helps retain investors. Investors will hold onto the stock longer.
27. Re:Why? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently you haven't.
28. Re:Why? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Actually no one is, but way to misstate what's going on...
29. Re:Why? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Try posting a basic financial fact sometime....
30. Re:Why? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody is looking in the mirror...
31. Re:Why? by oh_my_080980980 · 2013-04-24 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  Who knew jackasses who don't know dick about finance post on slashdot....
32. Re:Why? by mysidia · 2013-04-25 17:17 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. And my entire point is that whoever is counting on an inefficient market to somehow support Apple's stock price is a fool.
  Yes, but not because of market being inefficient or not. Anyone expecting a company's stock price to be "supported" at a certain level over a significant but insufficiently long period of time is a fool.
  There are all sorts of risks. If the market is efficient, it can suddenly become an inefficient one, where the price becomes excessively low (irrational negativity); or if the market is inefficient, it can suddenly become like an efficient one.
  Stocks can deviate by large amounts... one of the exciting thing about the class of asset, is... in the short term, you don't actually know what will happen, although, with varying levels of confidence, you can use statistical techniques and projections to make guesses, based on history, financial statements, news, public perception, and comparison to similar companys' recent performance responses.
  The safe bet... is in the long run, if the company's business is successful, and they make the appropriate numbers, their stock price will eventually reflect this increase in value at some point (You will be able to find a point in time in the future, that you could sell, for a higher price); it might not be in the same month, quarter, or year, but it will eventually happen, if you can wait long enough, and the company continues to generate the appropriate profits.
33. Re:Why? by mysidia · 2013-04-25 18:25 · Score: 1
  
  The run up is such that exactly matches the cost of shorting (borrowing the shares). That is the mistake that you and the OP keep on making: there is a cost of capital to exploit the run up in price, so it matches exactly that of the run up.
  The cost of capital may be negligible... if there is a noticeable run-up, the cost of capital to exploit it doesn't explain it. Because for some players, the cost of capital is pretty much zero, and people would not meaningfully comment about run-ups totaling less than the bid/ask spread plus the ordinary daily variations in stock price.
  Example 1: broker thinks there will be a run-up, so they sell shares that don't exist, at T+1 settlement, broker fails to deliver. After ex-dividend, they buy shares on the open market, and then deliver shares to buyer. The shares didn't technically exist during the short, so they didn't cost anything.
  Example 2: entity thinks there will be a run-up, makes deal with broker, to exploit predicted run-up. Buys a contract for a commission, that says if there is a $1 increase in the stock price, the entity is awarded $0.75 for every $1 X the number of shares bet on (at 75% level); if there is a $1 decrease in the stock price, the entity pays $1.25 for every $1 change X the number of shares bet on.
  Broker avoids assuming risk, by either retaining a share of stock or matching every bet of this nature, with a bet in the opposite direction (a different entity betting that there will be a short term decrease instead of a run-up).
  The point is... any run-up at all if actually true and reliably occuring, is exploitable.
  If the "run-up" is less than 1% of the stock price, then it doesn't really count as a "run up"; it would be well within the statistical noise/randomness.
Once again by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:51 · Score: 0

Maybe they should bring something out worth a damn instead of spending all their time/money on buying back what used to be worth 5 times as much if not more. *facepalm* of the day.
1. Re:Once again by smash · 2013-04-23 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because you make money buying high and selling low, right?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
AAPL After Hours by Rick+Richardson · 2013-04-23 10:51 · Score: 1

Current: $406.160.01% Volume High Low 6,049,276 $ 429.90 (17:02:34 PM) $ 398.1597 (16:13:10 PM)
1. Re:AAPL After Hours by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:58 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't see unusual motion because of this news, which seems kind of unexpected.
2. Re:AAPL After Hours by Dunbal · 2013-04-23 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because the people with real cash (banks and investment firms) have known about this for longer than you me or slashdot, and the average person isn't going to start trading a $400 stock (which means $40,000 as a minimum trade quantity thanks to 100 share lot sizes) after hours unless the company is going under or something.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
3. Re:AAPL After Hours by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  which means $40,000 as a minimum trade quantity thanks to 100 share lot sizes
  Unless after-hours trading requires specific lot sizes, 100-share lot sizes haven't been in effect for at least 15 years.
  This is especially true on NASDAQ traded shares (such as AAPL) since the computers are all handling the trades. I'm not a big fan of the HFTs, but one nice thing that they will do is readily gobble up and give up oddly-sized lots.
4. Re:AAPL After Hours by cpuh0g · 2013-04-24 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously have never done any sort of online investing. Go join E*Trade or any one of the zillion other online brokers and you can easily buy lots of just about any size. You can by 1 share of AAPL if you like.
what does this actually do? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:52 · Score: 0

I know American companies dont normally pay dividends so you dont make any dosh until you sell but if the company buys back the shares to burn off its cash mountain who owns those shares?
1. Re:what does this actually do? by PhamNguyen · 2013-04-23 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  They effectively disappear. Buy-backs and dividends are functionally equivalent.
2. Re:what does this actually do? by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  If the company repurchases its stock, the shares go away, thereby increasing the value of the remaining shares.
3. Re:what does this actually do? by hedwards · 2013-04-23 11:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No, they're not.
  Dividends encourage investors to hold their shares for long periods of time by giving some income along the way. A buy back is something which boosts the price of the shares, but does nothing to generate a revenue stream for the investor. And if it doesn't inspire new investors to buy in, it can result in little or no benefit to the investor.
  What's more, you can issue a dividend regardless of what the price of the stock is with respect to it's actual worth, whereas you shouldn't be buying back stock unless the shares are worth less than the management thinks they're worth.
  Dividends themselves are generally something that only make sense when the firm doesn't have somewhere to invest the money themselves. It basically says to the investor that you're going to make more money investing the money elsewhere than we're going to derive by investing it ourselves. And frequently that means that the business can't expand any further for regulatory reasons.
4. Re:what does this actually do? by istartedi · 2013-04-23 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Also, individual investors have to pay taxes on dividends. I'm not sure if corporations have to establish a cost basis for potential sale when they acquire their own shares. Not my problem. If the stock pays no dividends but goes up in price, I don't pay tax on the capital gains until I sell. If I never sell, I can leave the shares to my heirs who will get a new tax basis.
  Disclaimer: IANAfinancial/tax advisor...
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
5. Re:what does this actually do? by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is you're assuming that the money in Apple's bank account is as valuable to an investor as the money in their own bank account, but this is not really the case.
6. Re:what does this actually do? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:44 · Score: 0
  
  dividends benefit current stock holders.
  share buybacks benefit stock holds and option holders.
7. Re:what does this actually do? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  It basically says to the investor that you're going to make more money investing the money elsewhere than we're going to derive by investing it ourselves. And frequently that means that the business can't expand any further for regulatory reasons.
  Or the company only has so many things to work on without over-reaching or over-expanding, so they think it's better to give investors some form of payback. These days, most companies have far, far too much faith in their ability to expand into areas outside of their bread and butter. Hell, many tech companies don't even have bread and butter and are still trying to expand. Then when they fold, investors have all of jack shit to show for their long-term faith in the company.
8. Re:what does this actually do? by Dunbal · 2013-04-23 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  If the company repurchases its stock with company funds, the company funds go away thus decreasing the value of the remaining shares. Get it? The net effect is zero. What people like is that there are fewer shares around so that FUTURE gains per share are greater.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
9. Re:what does this actually do? by j-beda · 2013-04-23 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  If the company repurchases its stock with company funds, the company funds go away thus decreasing the value of the remaining shares. Get it? The net effect is zero. What people like is that there are fewer shares around so that FUTURE gains per share are greater.
  Additionally, *anybody* purchasing shares tends to increase the share price. If someone buys up $60 billion worth of shares at price X, everyone who thinks the stock is worth price X or less who has those shares will sell them, and the remaining shareholders will be those who think it is worth more than X, thus future sales will need to be at above X. From a "supply/demand" point of view - a buyback program decreases the supply side of things, and while it is occurring it increases the demand side of things, both of which tend to increase the price paid.
  One of the "rational" pricing "explanations" for the value of an investment is that it should be equal to the current value of all expected future payments adjusted by the return on a "risk-free investment". Much of the angst about the US defaulting on obligations is that typically US obligations have been thought of as that foundational "risk-free investment" against which all other investments have been being compared to - but I digress. Decreasing the number of outstanding shares, as Dunbai points out, increases the potential future payments on a per-share basis.
10. Re:what does this actually do? by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 13:16 · Score: 2
  
  No, the net effect is not zero. Think of it this way, if there were a company that made $0, but had $150B in the bank, what would that company be worth to investors? It would not be worth $150B. Think of it another way, what kind of return do investors expect for their money? If you believe that apple's cash is added directly on top of their value, that means their value minus cash is $230B. On a profit of $45B, that's a P/E ratio of just 5! That would be an incredibly good investment, but it's not because money in apple's bank account isn't worth as much to an investor as money in his own bank account. So if apple can reduce the number of shares, while also reducing their cash, that's a net benefit to their (remaining) investors.
11. Re:what does this actually do? by PhamNguyen · 2013-04-23 14:58 · Score: 2
  
  see here
  
  Both the cash dividends and share repurchase of same value have equivalent effect on the wealth of the shareholders. This assumes that all other factors such as the taxation are the same.
  also here (pdf)
  
  While buybacks and dividends are mathematical equivalents, executives and investors conceptualize them very differently.
12. Re:what does this actually do? by hedwards · 2013-04-23 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  That's just bullshit.
  Executives conceptualize them differently because they aren't mathematical equivalents when it comes to the effect on the wealth of the shareholders. In both cases they return wealth to the shareholders, however they have different tax consequences and different methods by which one can tap that revenue source. When I get a dividend, I can have it reinvested or I can have that money available for other uses. With a stock buy back, I have to sell shares in order to make use of the extra money. What's more, I have to pay for the privilege.
  What's more, in any given case they aren't going to come out the same. If you have a company with plenty of cash that's trading well below it's value, it can be quite profitable for all the investors for the company buy back shares. Now, for a company that's overvalued it can be a waste of money to buy back those shares whereas a dividend payment would be the more efficient way of getting investors money back.
  In other words, it takes a certain level of misunderstanding to think that they're equivalent when there's so much involved, the tax situation alone ensures that the two are not equivalent.
13. Re:what does this actually do? by hedwards · 2013-04-23 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Right and then there's the situation of taxable account versus non-taxable account and whether one is using a DRIP.
  But, in either case, the effect can be substantial for a lot of people. Enough so that it pays to pay attention to the consequences and the preferred method of a company.
14. Re:what does this actually do? by mysidia · 2013-04-23 15:37 · Score: 1
  
  Dividends encourage investors to hold their shares for long periods of time by giving some income along the way. A buy back is something which boosts the price of the shares, but does nothing to generate a revenue stream for the investor.
  Dividends take stockholder value out of the company represented by the stock itself, and convert it into a cash form, that is then send to the stockholders (value is removed from the stock and sent to shareholders).
  Buybacks take stockholder value out of the company represented by the stock, or by acquiring debt, that is then used to reduce the number of shares outstanding.
  In theory... a buyback does not change the value of the company, or its business prospects -- a big enough one may effect the share price, similar to a reverse split, since there are fewer shares on the market (the company just owns them circularly), but the market capitalization should be the same, or worst (if the buyback was financed).
  If I have $20,000 invested in a company before buyback, then after buyback, the market capitalization after the buyback is the same (only that outsiders hold fewer of the shares), at best -- in the short term, I should still have $20,000 invested in the company, and my share should still be worth approximately the same, not really improved by a buyback; hey the company bought all these shares -- great, now my share in the company includes these shares, the company has just converted some cash to shares.
  Now, if the company borrowed money to perform the buyback, and cannot produce earnings at a sufficient rate, my shares could actually lose value over buyback, due to the added cost of the debt..
  Another way I could lose money, is when the company does a buyback and then provides shares as compensation to insiders, or issues extra options or shares as executive compensation --- buyback does not assure that my value will not be diluted.
  The buyback makes sense if the company's shares are greatly undervalued, as the leverage of my shares are essentially increased.
  This only works, if the company buys back the shares for substantially less than they will ultimately be valued at.
  Example: say I own 100% of the stock of a company's whose assets are $50, which is undervalued by 10x. If the value is realized in a few months, there will be great profit for me, much more than if the company had simply held $50 in cash, and earned 2% interest on it.
  If the company's shares are undervalued by 5x, and the company buys back 1/4 of its shares... the increase in stockholder value could be tremendous, at the time in the future, when the market begins to give the shares the value that they deserve.
15. Re:what does this actually do? by Animats · 2013-04-23 15:38 · Score: 2
  
  If the company repurchases its stock, the shares go away, thereby increasing the value of the remaining shares.
  More significantly, it increases the value of stock options. Dividends don't do anything for option holders. (They're also taxed at a higher rate than the capital gain after a stock buyback. Buybacks and taking on debt are actions successful companies take primarily for tax reasons.)
16. Re:what does this actually do? by PhamNguyen · 2013-04-23 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Executives conceptualize them differently because they aren't mathematical equivalents when it comes to the effect on the wealth of the shareholders. In both cases they return wealth to the shareholders, however they have different tax consequences and different methods by which one can tap that revenue source. When I get a dividend, I can have it reinvested or I can have that money available for other uses. With a stock buy back, I have to sell shares in order to make use of the extra money. What's more, I have to pay for the privilege.
  So when you get dividends, you have to pay transaction fees if you want to re-invest. If there is a buy-back (and you choose not to sell), then you effectively have your "divident" re-invested for you, and you have to pay not to re-invest. So in both cases there is a "default" and you have to pay transaction fees if you do something other than the default. The thing with being over/undervalued is that everyone has their own opinion and there is no obvious reason why the opinion of management is espeically important. After all, if it was really obvious that managment only made buy-out offers when the stock really was undervalued, no one would agree to sell their stocks once the buyback was announced. On tax, I agree there is a difference, but given that the original question was about the mechanics of a buyback, I think the term "functionally equivalent" is quite fair.
17. Re:what does this actually do? by phantomfive · 2013-04-23 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  A buyback increases the stock price because of supply and demand. Assuming the company has all the same fundamentals before and after the buyback, then the demand for the stock will remain the same. Since the supply has diminished, naturally the stock price will increase until equilibrium is reached.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
18. Re:what does this actually do? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  individual investors have to pay taxes on dividends.
  True, but depending on the dividend type and the individual investor's tax situation, it is possible for that dividend tax rate to be lower than the marginal tax rate the investor pays.
Apple stock = Apple products by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 10:53 · Score: 0

It's obvious what the idea is here. A single share in Apple is going to cost a fortune, the same shareholder value will be divided by significant less stock.
1. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  $60 Billion is only a small fraction of the company's overall value.
2. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  $60 Billion is only a small fraction of the company's overall value
  The current market cap is $381B. $60B is an enormous buyback.
3. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  nevertheless, 1/6 is a small fraction
4. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  What a stupid comment. "small" is a relative term. In this case it isn't and it's very significant.
  Just like a 10% GDP growth for a mature economy would be insanely large, yet it's only 1/10. "a small fraction" as you would say.
  You're out of your depth. Stick to watching cartoon pony porn and playing WoW. Leave the real big boy talk to others.
5. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:10 · Score: 0
  
  you're an idiot and should not comment on topics you don't understand, 1/6 is NOT a small fraction, it is a massively significant portion of the stocks value, it is equal to approximately their profits for 2 years and represents a huge gamble in the value of their own stock. Even if they had said the buyback was half or a 3rd of that it would still be a massive portion of the companies value. If the profit margins slide further over the coming years it would mean that Apple just threw away several years of Ipad and Iphone sales and profit.
6. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by ClioCJS · 2013-04-23 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  as fractions go, I'm pretty sure 1/6th is smaller than 5/6ths of all fractions between 1/0th and 1/1th.
  
  --
  -Clio
  Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
  Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
7. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by mosb1000 · 2013-04-23 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, but this was the context:
  
  A single share in Apple is going to cost a fortune, the same shareholder value will be divided by significant less stock.
  Is a company buying back 1/6 of their stock going to result in shares costing "a fortune" or "significant less stock"? No. So you are the one who fails to understand the context, not me.
8. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  1/0 doesn't actually have a value, so your comparison doesn't make sense. You probably meant between 0/6 and 6/6 (or 0/1 and 1/1).
9. Re:Apple stock = Apple products by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  I am pretty sure that 1/6th is smaller than 6/6ths of all fractions between 1/0th and 1/1th.
Sounds like a good idea by PhamNguyen · 2013-04-23 11:02 · Score: 1

Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. Sometimes they run out of productive things to do with the money they have, so the most responsible thing to do is return it to shareholders. Apple's strategy is to make a lot of money now, not invest for some far future payoff.
1. Re:Sounds like a good idea by ArcadeMan · 2013-04-23 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  If Apple's only goal was to make money, they'd sell things with a far higher profit margin, like sugared water.
  I hope Tim Cook remembers what drove Steve Jobs when he approved products or threw them back to the drawing board.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
2. Re:Sounds like a good idea by the+computer+guy+nex · 2013-04-23 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Companies exist to make money for their shareholders. Sometimes they run out of productive things to do with the money they have, so the most responsible thing to do is return it to shareholders. Apple's strategy is to make a lot of money now, not invest for some far future payoff.
  Well Apple was doing both. In the quarter they just reported there were massive increases in capital expenditures, looks like another product is around the corner.
3. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No. No they do not.
  This is the biggest lie ever told to the American public, and anyone telling you this should never be trusted. (Yes. This is a large list.)
  Companies exist to promote commerce, create useful goods, and provide a livelihood for their employees. Owners and stock holders are allowed (This is a revokable privilege, not a right) to make money to provide incentive to facilitate the above functions. Anything less is a criminal enterprise.
  When we deviated so far in to the "making money" and "shareholder value" ideas is the day this country started to fall apart.
  This is not an argument. This is advice. Ignore it at your own peril, America.
4. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  what a load of bullshit. Investors will not provide livelihoods and useful goods unless they are making a profit in return for the LOAN of their money in order to create said employment and goods. If the business cannot create a profit then said jobs and goods are taken away and the investor goes elsewhere, neither side as a right to anything, not the employee, nor society even if the goods are needed. The relationship is symbiotic, you can't have one without the other, the idea that investors are happy for you to risk their money for no benefit is ridiculous.
5. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  If you would start at the beginning, you'd see that we are talking about what should be done with some money that's NOT being used to do any of those nice things you mentioned.
6. Re:Sounds like a good idea by phantomfive · 2013-04-23 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Companies exist to promote commerce, create useful goods, and provide a livelihood for their employees.
  Ask a bunch of company owners why they run their company, and see how many of them give you that answer. I'll bet the answer is close to zero.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
7. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 19:02 · Score: 0
  
  I believe you are mixing running/owning a company and a reason for companies to exist.
  The reason the lawfull pseudo persona of "company" is allowed to exist in the first place is to promote commerce, create the opportunity to pool money to create usefull goods that might not be possible otherwise, and provide a big enough entity to be able to provide a livelihood to the employees.
  Because nobody would do that with their own money just for the heck of it, company owners are allowed to try to get as much return for their investement as they can. But companies as whole do not exist as money grabbing tool for the owners. They exist to enchance society.
8. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 19:22 · Score: 0
  
  This is very true and is I guess most condensly expressed as "a shareholder is just one of the stakeholders". This was already described in detail by Edward Freeman in his book "Strategic Management". See:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory
9. Re:Sounds like a good idea by mjwx · 2013-04-23 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Companies exist to promote commerce, create useful goods, and provide a livelihood for their employees.
  Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
  
  /wipes tear from eye.
  
  Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
  
  Companies exist to make money. End of story.
  
  They make money by creating goods, engaging in commerce and employing people, but dont kid yourself, this is a means to an end.
  
  I think you need to awaken from your libertarian fantasy world, libertarians dont make good businessmen because they assume that their competition are going to play by the same rules. They dont learn that the competition dont have any rules until the libertarian's lunch has been well and truly eaten.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
10. Re:Sounds like a good idea by smash · 2013-04-23 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  The being a prick aspect was a means to an end. The end was making things that didn't suck (for steve's personal definition of not sucking). Sometimes you need someone to tell it like it is ("your product is shit, try again") rather than maintain political correctness.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
11. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 20:50 · Score: 0
  
  we wont know for another 18-24 months as the current product roadmap is still stuff that was approved/set in motion before jobs died..
  Yes including the 7" ipad, and the elongated iphone 5 and whatever else comes out of Apple in the next year or 2..
  It will be interesting to see if they manage to keep up the current pace of new product introductions/etc smoothly or if things start to fall apart after they run out of the jobs roadmap....
12. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 23:53 · Score: 0
  
  This, in a nutshell, is socialism. In communism, there are no company owners. Socialism differs from communism not in the right to possess property (neither has it), but because it's a government-granted privilege in socialism. That makes socialism closely related to feudalism, where the privilege was granted by the king or duke. But economic prosperity is only achievable where the people have rights, including the right to property. /Their/ property. Not the kings or the governments.
  So, do not trust anyone that says stock holders have a revocable privilege. If property is not a right for them, it it's not a basic human right, and therefore not a right for you either. And don't expect tyrants to respect other rights, either. Once the first right has been sacrificed on the alter of ideology, others will follow.
13. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  Which would explain our economic situation.
14. Re:Sounds like a good idea by RevDisk · 2013-04-24 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  Huh, what?
  
  Companies are a legal fiction to limit liability (in a civil law sense) and allow complicated forms of ownership. That's advice on par with recommending your turtle should only operate a forklift using cat6 instead of cat5e.
15. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Company owners typically don't run companies.
16. Re:Sounds like a good idea by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Companies exist to promote commerce, create useful goods, and provide a livelihood for their employees.
  You're right. And he'd have been right, but he used the word "companies" instead of "corporations". The two are not remotely the same thing.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re:Sounds like a good idea by drinkypoo · 2013-04-24 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Companies exist to promote commerce, create useful goods, and provide a livelihood for their employees.
  Ask a bunch of company owners why they run their company, and see how many of them give you that answer. I'll bet the answer is close to zero.
  On the contrary. I'll bet the answer is closer to 100% than zero. The issue is, how many of them are really promoting commerce et cetera, and how many are simply existing as some kind of inefficient middleman standing between the customer and what they want? How many of them are paying their employees a poverty wage? How many of them are creating goods whose only use is to put money into their pocket, because it's some crap nobody really needs — usually because it's a piece of crap that won't work for the intended purpose? These people often tell themselves that they do all of those things, when in reality they do none of them. Then they will proceed to tell you that they do them, as well, as justification for their miserable existence.
  Plenty of small business owners are just out there fulfilling a need, I'm not trying to demonize everyone who's just trying to make a living. And there's nothing wrong with trying to turn a profit, either. It's hypocrisy to which I object.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
18. Re:Sounds like a good idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  No. No they do not.
  This is the biggest lie ever told to the American public, and anyone telling you this should never be trusted. (Yes. This is a large list.)
  Companies exist to promote commerce, create useful goods, and provide a livelihood for their employees. Owners and stock holders are allowed (This is a revokable privilege, not a right) to make money to provide incentive to facilitate the above functions. Anything less is a criminal enterprise.
  Might be true where you live, but over here in Finland, in the the socialistic Europe, the Share Company Act clearly states (after translation, obviously):
  "The purpose of the Company is to make a profit for the shareholders, unless the articles of association decree otherwise."
In other words: Apple doesn't know what to do by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:13 · Score: 0

with the money. Instead of investing it in the future of the company, they return it to the investors. Looking good.
1. Re:In other words: Apple doesn't know what to do by smash · 2013-04-23 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  If they didn't know what to do with the money, they'd leave it in the bank.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Arrogant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:20 · Score: 0

So Apple will use their investor's money to buy out some of their investors instead of returning it. How arrogant. But why should Apple treat their investors any better than their customers...
This is a well understood good strategy. by Camembert · 2013-04-23 11:35 · Score: 1

It is in general a good idea for a company to buy back shares when they are low, especially if the company expects good business going forward. In a way, this plan makes clear that they are very confident in their upcoming new products.
1. Re:This is a well understood good strategy. by moeinvt · 2013-04-24 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's only a good strategy in a limited number of situations. I don't think Apple execs believe their stock is trading at a big discount at the moment.
  The other well understood reason for this is that the company has a pile of cash and they see no opportunities for productive investment. If they thought they could keep growing i-gadget sales going forward, why not invest in new production capacity for example?
  The market is becoming saturated with "gadgets" and just like we saw with PCs, phones and tablets are rapidly becoming commoditized.
Apple's Press Releases by EdmundSS · 2013-04-23 11:42 · Score: 1

Share buyback here.
Results here.
In Soviet Russia by Roachie · 2013-04-23 11:54 · Score: 0

apple purchases you!

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
R.I.P. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 11:58 · Score: 0

It's my perception Apple used to be a beacon of inovation and design, now it's dumping it's warchest trying to get a short term stock bump to help insiders sell.
1. Re:R.I.P. by lxs · 2013-04-23 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  Very much like Nokia once was. So if history is anything to go by, they will bring out one more great product in a sea of mediocrity that will be a commecial flop and by the end of the decade they will devolve into a patent troll propped up from the shadows by an unlikely ally (like Canon for instance)
They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jobs by SuperKendall · 2013-04-23 12:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

That, OR they might want to start coming up with some new ideas.
Well Apple takes on average about two-three years to deliver products that create entire markets.
So they are about due, and Cook said there were some surprises coming in the fall.
But it's absurd for you to mention Jobs in this context, products take many years to complete. It will be at least two more years before we see products that never had input from Jobs, including this one.
It's also kind of funny how Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas, when no other company seems to have the same need... or at least no-one ever says they do.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This is worse than Yahoo messages by m.dillon · 2013-04-23 12:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Stick to your roots guys, this isn't a stock forum and 99% of the people here clearly don't know one blessed thing about investing, how companies work, or even what these big numbers actually mean.
Actually its worse then that, but I'm being politic.
-Matt
1. Re:This is worse than Yahoo messages by wavedeform · 2013-04-23 12:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Too true. Here is Apple, following Warren Buffet's advice, and the Slashdot crowd dumps on them for not knowing what to do with their money. Slashdot isn't what it used to be, and it never was.
2. Re:This is worse than Yahoo messages by smash · 2013-04-23 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  100%. For an example of a business run by engineers: See Sun. Oh wait...
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
3. Re:This is worse than Yahoo messages by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  Actually its worse then that, but I'm being politic.
  Worse than that. Than.
That's SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:10 · Score: 1

You know what Apple could have done in the real world with that kind of money? Imagine if they decided to use it on philanthropy.
1. Re:That's SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS by j-beda · 2013-04-23 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  You know what Apple could have done in the real world with that kind of money? Imagine if they decided to use it on philanthropy.
  They would have gotten beaten up by their owners. The people who own Apple (otherwise known as their shareholders) would be unlikely to allow their elected board members to give away one sixth of their investments.
2. Re:That's SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS by smash · 2013-04-23 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  They're a publicly traded company, not a charity. Imagine what the US government could have done for the world with the trillions spent on Iraq and Afghanistan?
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
3. Re:That's SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 14:41 · Score: 0
  
  they could have rooted out dangerous al'qaeda militants, and made the oil fie...people free for democracy and civil liberties.
4. Re:That's SIXTY BILLION DOLLARS by schlachter · 2013-04-24 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  could have caused some serious damage.
  
  --
  My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Options holders own nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 12:36 · Score: 0

An option to buy is nothing of value, and Apple is not owned by the Options holders, it has no duty to them.
"whereas you shouldn't be buying back stock unless the shares are worth less than the management thinks they're worth"
The market has passed its judgement, Cook is no Jobs, Cook does not know better than the market and he should not be using Apple money to create a false market in Apple shares.
Really, if he can't find productive use for it, he should hand it back to shareholders. Tax on dividends is no excuse, and its far better for them to have it than not have it. As it is, they have a falling shareprice, and that's largely because Cook can't seem to find new directions to spend money on. In effect the company is as big as he can successfully manage.
Man, you keep saying to yourself that a CEO is only a CEO and mostly they're just placeholders, but Jobs made such a huge difference to Apple. Cook I view as a placeholder till someone else comes along.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by geekoid · 2013-04-23 12:41 · Score: 1

What are you talking about? they have created 1 new market, tablets.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by wavedeform · 2013-04-23 12:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

It depends upon what you mean with the word "created." They certainly changed the face of computing, mobile music players, smart phones, and tablets. All of these categories existed before Apple got into the market, but once Apple decides on an approach, other companies seem to try and do things in a similar way.
$60 billions by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 13:01 · Score: 0

Instead of buying back $60 billions of stock, maybe Apple can buy some companies instead.
What happens if Apple buys Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 13:14 · Score: 0

In practice it should never happen, as the capitalization of a company should logically be greater than the available cash. But I was wondering what happens if a company owns itself?
1. Re:What happens if Apple buys Apple by smash · 2013-04-23 14:26 · Score: 1
  
  They're privately owned.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
2. Re:What happens if Apple buys Apple by owenc67202 · 2013-04-23 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  They're privately owned.
  They will be privately owned at this rate. This is a leveraged buyout.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by jd2112 · 2013-04-23 13:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple: New Product Development for Microsoft since 1985!

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
No enough taxes by manu0601 · 2013-04-23 13:43 · Score: 1

Governments should fix the loopholes that allows Apple to pay too little taxes. Obviously this company has more money than ideas of how to spend it.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 13:45 · Score: 2, Informative

I feel stupid having to add a disclaimer, but even someone that isn't a huge Apple fan (namely me) can admit that, between ipods, iphones, and ipads... they really did break their respective markets wide open.
Mp3 players existed before the ipod, but they were borderline niche devices. Business types had Blackberrys and some people had shitty winmo smartphones, but it was nothing like what happened when the iphones came around. Windows tablets existed before the ipad, but it was never anything like what happened with the first ipads hit the market.
And all of those markets did well as a result, and let's not lie to ourselves because they're not slashdot's favorite company.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Samantha+Wright · 2013-04-23 13:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

Incorrect! Who do you think sold them BASIC for the Apple II?
...I'm kidding; they had their own.
Until 1979.
When Microsoft sold them a better one.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
You have a better term by SuperKendall · 2013-04-23 14:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

they really did break their respective markets wide open.
Kudos for coming up with a much more accurate way of phrasing this than I did - "Created" really was a wrong term compared with "elevated" or "break wide open" as you said.
Basically they expanded the market greatly for a number of different product categories, and not just hardware - iTunes and online music counts as well, it was really Apple that made that a consumer market (against the will of the music industry).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
1. Re:You have a better term by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 17:08 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks. And the shame of it is, it's a familiar concept in business... just not here. Here we're very preoccupied with who was strictly first, which is often totally irrelevant with regard to scope and scale of contributions to a segment of the market.
  The short version... being first doesn't earn you customers, good, appearling products and services do. And first mover advantage doesn't guarantee capitalization.
2. Re:You have a better term by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 18:05 · Score: 0
  
  Here we're very preoccupied with who was strictly first
  Because companies like Apple want to stifle innovation by claiming to be first (when they aren't), inventing things that they didn't invent and then preventing competition through patents.
  We have invented a new technology called multi-touch. It works like magic, you don't need a stylus, far more accurate than any interface ever shipped, it ignores touches, mutli-finger gestures, and BOY have we patented it!
  The iphone and ipad are brilliant and can succeed on their own merit *without* needing to artificially prevent competition, once in a while they need to climb out of that walled garden and realize they didn't invent everything.
3. Re:You have a better term by isorox · 2013-04-23 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Created" really was a wrong term compared with "elevated" or "break wide open" as you said.
  Like saying al gore "created" the Internet :)
  Apple and google are the two major players in the industry since 2000. 1985-2000 was Microsoft and intel.
  Be interesting to see who runs 2015-2030.
4. Re:You have a better term by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  I make no excuses for anyone's courtroom shenanigans. Not at all. But so far, that really does seem tangential to Apple's remarkable successes in each of these markets. At least, I don't recall them managing to torpedo any likely "iWidget Killers" in the courtroom.
  But, again, I'd like to see that garbage stopped. Abruptly.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by whisper_jeff · 2013-04-23 14:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's also kind of funny how Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas, when no other company seems to have the same need... or at least no-one ever says they do.
Other companies need Apple to come up with new ideas.
I'll let you fill in the reason why...
A ploy to repatriate some of their overseas cash? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-23 15:08 · Score: 0

And try to use a buyback to avoid paying the 35% tax on repatriating the profits? I'm sure the IRS will be watching...
Re:A ploy to repatriate some of their overseas cas by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-04-23 17:01 · Score: 1

Neh... too big to prosecute.

--
New Economic Perspectives
Better use of the cash by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-04-23 17:04 · Score: 1

Move all assembly lines back to the USA, while maintaining the same price on products. You will incur some losses at the beginning, but you will score $h*tload of political points (a.k.a. goodwill) that you can cash in later via issuing new shares, neutralizing the losses.

--
New Economic Perspectives
1. Re:Better use of the cash by smash · 2013-04-23 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  Political points with who? All they'll achieve by doing that is increase their manufacturing costs out of sight, and the shareholders will crucify them for it.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
2. Re:Better use of the cash by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2013-04-24 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like you underestimate the buying power of people who are willing to shell out more extra bucks just because they are "Made in USA". Those are the people who are no in debt, paid off house, and hoarding boatload of gold coins and cash.
  Not to mention Apple will be eligible to bid for defense contract as well. That's where the BIG money is... the federal government.
  
  --
  New Economic Perspectives
3. Re:Better use of the cash by smash · 2013-05-01 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think you overestimate the potential size of the US market compared to the rest of the world including china. Also you under-estimate the rest of the world's population who do not consider "made in USA" to be a good thing. Quite the reverse in fact. The only products we see made in the US in the rest of the world are shitty low quality cars and low-tech stone age motorcycles.
  
  --
  I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by jovius · 2013-04-23 17:41 · Score: 1

Besides the mechanics of the free market (is there any?) works so that if someone comes up with a nice product of course others will copy it because otherwise they would lose their share. To differentiate from the others some details are changed or improved. Some just clone the current winning concept. So far the successful product of Apple's have been like hot knife in butter, but the market is not so vertical anymore.
So there's no innate need to innovate at all. It's an option The past is pretty much meaningless. The sales happen now and the appreciation comes from the expectations. Successful companies can differentiate and deliver. If similar product has been released and it wasn't a success then it's a bad example of a product and management.
makes sense by buybuydandavis · 2013-04-23 19:30 · Score: 1

With the Fed just giving away money, every company should do this.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by smash · 2013-04-23 19:43 · Score: 1

Who do you think built the mass-market platform for Microsoft to release their basic for?

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Xest · 2013-04-23 19:53 · Score: 1

"It's also kind of funny how Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas, when no other company seems to have the same need... or at least no-one ever says they do."
That's because Apple keeps it's product plans secret so people assume it's doing nothing, whilst Google has been open about glass and Samsung has been open about the fact it's building a smart watch.
People aren't saying other companies need new ideas, because we already know they have them and are pursuing them, with Apple we've no idea, for all we know they may well not be doing anything at all, though that's unlikely.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by beelsebob · 2013-04-23 20:31 · Score: 1

Touch screen smart phones.
GUI based computers.
Portable music players.
Note: Creating a market is not the same as creating a product, or inventing a product.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by bluegutang · 2013-04-23 21:03 · Score: 1

It's also kind of funny how Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas, when no other company seems to have the same need... or at least no-one ever says they do.
Apple sells more expensive products than their competitors. If they don't have new and unique features, then nobody will want to buy them.
Not the first by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 03:07 · Score: 0

Indications are a lot of companies have been buying their own stock up.
you have zero business sense... by schlachter · 2013-04-24 03:16 · Score: 1

The world is not as you say only because you wish it to be so. I doubt that any of us would work our asses off and risk everything to promote commerce or to support a bunch of other people who are looking for jobs. It's all about making money and improving our lives...or furthering our agenda (whether political, environmental, etc.)

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Kimomaru · 2013-04-24 03:17 · Score: 1

Not absurd at all. Jobs was on until the end when he was working on Apple TV. This was a warm hand off, they didn't need to wait two years. And all companies have a need to create new products or improve on old ones, but it's the crafy innovators who stay at the top of the food chain. Jobs was an idea man who's time had come, and Apple needed an idea man badly. Now, the golden goose is gone. Since then, we got the iPad mini, which is basically capitalizing on an established market. Good product, but in terms of innovation it doesn't rank up there with making music and move downloads legal and easy to use.
don't know anything about investing... by schlachter · 2013-04-24 03:17 · Score: 1

I'm often surprised how little engineers know about investing and business in general. Engineers often take a very middle class, employee mindset, and fail to see the business and investment opportunities around them.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Obligatory Penny Arcade comic by Rolman · 2013-04-24 05:38 · Score: 1

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2001/08/29

--
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by tapi0 · 2013-04-24 06:06 · Score: 0

Commodore? :-b
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Samantha+Wright · 2013-04-24 06:48 · Score: 1

Going to have to go with tapi0 on this one. It's Tramiel, Tramiel all the way down!

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-24 07:23 · Score: 0

They certainly changed the face of computing, mobile music players, smart phones, and tablets. All of these categories existed before Apple got into the market, but once Apple decides on an approach, other companies seem to try and do things in a similar way.
Nonsense. There was nothing new about the way Apple did computing, mobile music players, or smart phones. Tablets I'm not sure since I never owned or had an interest in one, but I'm pretty sure the only thing they really added was a crapload of 'rounded corner' patents.
I think these are weird examples. If you asked me what market Apple 'created', the only thing I could come up with was iTunes. I'm really surprised to see any hardware examples at all in this discussion. Apple never did anything new hardware wise, not even in the old days. They just took something existing and made it look like something that mom would accept in the living room.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Belial6 · 2013-04-24 08:18 · Score: 1

The reason that Apple "needs" to come up with new ideas is that coming up with new ideas is their business model. Really it isn't "coming up with new ideas" it is repackaging existing ideas in a way that turns a niche market (or market segment) into a mass market.

Apple is a high margin manufacturer. If they don't move into new markets or market segments, they quickly become overwhelmed by companies making that produce products at a better quality/price/feature ratio. They did that with GUI Desktops, MP3 Players, PDAs, Smart Phones, Tablets, and *nix on the desktop. They were overwhelmed in the GUI Desktop market. MP3 players are now a niche market again because MP3 players come free inside every smartphone sold now. PDAs are niche market for the same reason. They have lost the lead in the Smart Phone market, and are seeing serious chinks in the armor of their tablet market. They are still doing well profit wise on with Unix on the desktop, but they have not had the success in taking it really mass market like their other products. Their market share is still very low. At the same time that they are making progress on that front, they are educating the public that they don't need Windows while a dramatically cheaper alternative *nix is waiting in the wings to move from every other market into the desktop. Some (not I) would argue that the desktop market is going niche anyway.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Belial6 · 2013-04-24 08:19 · Score: 1

Commodore?
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-25 22:27 · Score: 0

Whispers Wasn't iTunes bought in from outside? /Whispers
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-26 05:31 · Score: 0

Microsoft only took notice of Apple after Jobs left which shows how overrated he was!
The Apple-Stock is a bubble by someones · 2013-04-27 23:14 · Score: 1

They are doing the only correct thing: Buying.
If the bubble bursted, apple would be done for.
If they buy back stock, they:
* increase the stockprices again - stabilizing the apple-bubble.
* lowering the risk of a popping bubble.
Re:They have lots of new ideas, some still from Jo by smash · 2013-04-28 18:09 · Score: 1

Apple II pre-dates the C64 by a number of years. The VIC-20 wasn't really mass-market.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.