Let's see how significant that $70 million dollar contribution to red is. Let's compare it to the hoopla surrounding the 30% take for every $99.00 subscription to Microsoft Office. Exactly how much could Apple take in over the next twelve months from its 30% cut? It's reasonable to assume that Microsoft Office subscriptions could amount to about 10% of new iPad sales in the next twelve months and perhaps 5% of the existing installed base of active iPads. This could mean about 12.5 million Office for iPad subscriptions in the next twelve months and $375 million in high-margin revenue for Apple. As a shareholder I'm concerned about margins and keeping them high. Donating $70 million to charity of any kind is not in the best interest of its shareholders.
It's been a long hard road holding this companies shares. As a shareholder I don't want Apple to interfere with states's rights as it did in Arizona. I'm also opposed to Apple not being transparent when it comes to the costs of going green. Now Apple reports spending $70 million on contributions to RED. I suggest that if Cook wants to contribute with his multi million salary for AIDS research go ahead. Use the cash for RD, acquisitions, dividends and stock repurchase. Let the shareholders decide how they want to contribute to their charity.
Apple patent to implant silver nano-particles in sapphire
This patent was just published last week. Some interesting ideas in it, check it out.
Changing colors of materials
US 20140076600 A1
As technology advances, product designs in general, and designs for mobile products in particular, concentrate on aesthetics and durability. Durable metal housings for products typically receive surface treatments to alter physical appearance and characteristics which increase the aesthetic quality perceived by a user. For example, anodized aluminum in particular is a conventional manner in which to provide a cosmetic surface with reasonable durability having unique aesthetic characteristics. Different colors may be applied through dyes for cosmetic appeal and sealing techniques may further be applied for durability. Glass cover substrates, plastic substrates, and other substrates may also be used.
In another embodiment, if the particles are infused within a radio frequency (RF) transparent matrix, they can be utilized to create an RF transparent metallic appearing surface. By applying the ink over antenna windows in electronic devices, discontinuities in a housing that would normally be quite obvious can be substantially masked. In this way substantially all of an exterior surface of an electronic device can take on an appearance of being metallic, while wireless communication pathways remain unhindered. Another advantage associated with the use of silver nano-particles is their utility in providing an anti-microbial coating to a device.
The silver nano-particles can be applied to an outer surface of a device in a number of ways including spin coating, printing, and ion implantation. Finally, in another embodiment the pigment nano-particles can be used to coat a transparent structure such as glass, plastic or sapphire, to create a color filter. Opacity of the filter can be adjusted based on a particle density of the nano-particles
Gay rights, illegal's rights, minority rights, kids rights, senior rights, women rights, physically and mentally challenged rights.... The list goes. Let Congress deal with it. I'm waiting for my "white male minority" rights to happen. Apple needs to focus on what it does best by making products the world wants no matter the discrimination. Too many have given Mr. Cook a pass. Time to play hardball and produce or find another job(S). Look what we the shareholder pay the board and Cook. Board members get $300,000.00 a year. Ever wonder how much that works out to a day since they don't meet that often? How about Cook. Might his high salary and stock option reflex our guilt on how "gays" have been treated in the past? I don't think so but the thought has crossed my mind because I just can't come to gripes with how much this CEO makes . I'm #$%$. Not because Cook is gay but because he hasn't done anything. Jon Ive spoke about theft in a recent interview regarding his designs. Shouldn't Cook be more outspoken on the subject? What do we shareholders know about the patent conflicts? Ever wonder why Apple still does business with Samsung? I do. Jobs passing was a long time ago in technical terms. We as shareholder deserve more. Where is the outrage? Surely the smart money has been short since the all time high.
I'll continue to hope that Apple comes out with "the next best thing" yet I agree this stock has been dead money since the highs of $700. With the S&P and DOW at or near all time highs I agree there are better companies to own. The waiting has been painful but having to listen to Cook speak on Global Warming and Gays rights has given me the greatest pause in evaluating my holdings. I'm interested in margins, profits, dividends, and new products. Cook wouldn't even address the cost of Apple going green during the last annual shareholders meeting. Cook was not acting in a fiduciary manner and was arrogant in his response by telling the person asking the question to sell his shares if unhappy with Apples policies. The question was in response to the proxy that asked the question with 18% voting for the measure yet Cook meets Ichan for dinner with Ichan holding less then 2% of the shares. Cook was wrong. He was also wrong in getting involved in State Rights. The Arizona State legislature passed a bill. This same state gave Apple generous consessions to build the Sapphire plant in the state. Cook gets involved and asked the Governor to veto the bill. Perhaps the city should withdraw its tax incentive since the plant has already been built. Cook and Gore need to go.
As a long time share holder of this company I believe the board should put more control on Cook in regards to his outspoken views on climate change and gay rights. He does not get my vote of approval on either of the subjects when it comes to my holdings in Apple. Obama has proven that you can not lead by dividing. Step aside Mr. Cookd/Gore, and let the company expand based upon innovation not politics.
Perhaps you should rethink your post. Back in 2004, when peter oppenheimer took over, when the ipod was an amazing product, apple did not have $159 billion in cash. On Oppenheimer's watch the company developed new products and the cash kept growing to the $159 billion. Nobody has ever had that kind of cash stash to deal with. How did he manage that cash? He created lots of ways for them to acquire that cash, not get taxed on that quest, invest that cash in a shell corporation in nevada, just across the border so they could avoid california taxes as well, very clever uses of that cash. As I said the other day he has proven to be very good.
Cook has always gotten the credit for global logistics and manufacturing but Oppenheimer worked the financial side managing inventory and the cash. No I can't prove that Oppenheimer was responsible for the last buyback prior to earrings, saving the shareholders the cost of dividends on those shares. Give him a break. He helped lots of us make lots of money. Thank you Peter Oppenheimer.
Thank you. I read your Feb. 20th post, did a little research and have brought on two more occasions. Its a win win for apple as well. They have the supply but won't have to be committed to the purchase. Apple still has the option to bail on sapphire and lose their original investment. I think that slipped the media attention.
Banking firm Goldman Sachs announced on Monday that Peter Oppenheimer, who serves as chief financial officer of Apple, has joined its company's board of 13 directors effective immediately.
Ever wonder why our government and media no longer use the term global warming and replaced it with climate change? (I for one did not vote to keep Al Gore on the board for several reasons.) I am however happy to see Apple use solar, geothermal, green energies. Having said that I believe in transparency and Cook or Oppenheimer should have addressed the cost issue including the green tax incentives Apple is receiving from the fed. Looks like 2.5% of the shareholders supported the NCPPR proposal with perhaps some not even reading or understanding the ballot. Cook telling NCPPR to get out of the stock if “they” thought Apple was only interested in making profits was a little over the top.I have no information on the issue of whether going green effects margins positively or negatively but I believe shareholders should be provided that information. I said last week that I never thought about “Gay Rights” when purchasing shares of apple. Now I have yet more to consider. Do I have to believe in global warming when considering my next purchase? Should I not be concerned about margins? Does Apple have a responsibility to be transparent to its shareholders?
It has been reported that Alibaba is recently talking with Ctrip to invest in Ctrip. Alibaba do not want to left out in the on line travel business, they may do a similarly deal as Baidu invested in QUNR last year. This may drive Ctrip share price much higher.
It was Peter Oppenheimer's leadership issuing bonds to finance its stock buyback that Apple avoided paying $9.2 billion in taxes to the U.S. government, making its decision to take on debt a "no-brainer."
Despite having nearly $150 billion in cash and investments, Apple decided that taking on debt would be the best way to fund its $100 billion capital return program. That's because most of Apple's cash is held overseas, and returning it to the U.S. to buy back shares and issue a dividend would require repatriation taxes to be applied.
Be caution for what you wish for. It was Oppenheimer that worked with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank that led to the debt offering and resulted in Apple paying out the largest dividend in the world and dramatically increased it share buyback program. I am also of the opinion that he was part of the decision to recently purchase those 16 billion dollars of buyback prior to the last dividend payment, saving the company and additional 3% since the shares where retired and no dividend paid out. Oppenheimer earned my respect and his salary.
Meanwhile, institutional ownership of Amazon, Google and Microsoft are near record highs.
What could Mr. Cook say this Friday that would move the shares and create more interest in the stock?
Sales of iPhones in China, some type of partnership with Tesla increase the dividend and buyback program, announce partnership with Motion Picture companies for content on newly upgraded Itv, appointment of Mr. Musk to the board, creation of a new payment program using iTunes as the core, announce a major acquisition, present the next new thing..... And then what happens if its the same boring meeting as has been the case since Cook became top dog?????
Apple is lacking innovation, leadership, charisma. Elon Musk is all and more. Space, Solar, Automotive! Fear not the loss in margins and imagine tomorrow. The new frontiers. Just Imagine the possibilities, the future.
Doing my DD over the years I've studied the merits of an open system vs proprietary, software vs hardware, growth vs valve etc. What part of my equation is about gay rights? None. The media and analysts have made their mistakes about Apple and I have taken advantage of this by buying on the dips. Although restless with the timing of new products I remained hopeful and purchased even more shares. Today is different. We need to change the board and CEO.
Tim Cook has become vocal about gay rights.(Duh) In November, Cook wrote an editorial urging Congress to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which passed the Senate but is awaiting a vote in the House. Freedom of Speech as an individual I salute. As CEO of Apple and encouraging the Governor of Arizona to vote against a bill past by the Arizona State legislature is just wrong. Obama uses executive power when Congress doesn't pass laws he supports. Like Obama, Cook without authority from the board or share holders is doing the same thing. Mr. Cook should have done his homework when selecting a state to build a factory. 2000 new jobs is wonderful until someone looks into the details of what Apple got out of the deal. Now Cook wants to tell the Governor how to govern. As a share holder I have had enough of Cook. His time should not be diverted from the interest of the share holders.
I couldn't agree more. I just read your post after posting about the subject. Orwell has come back to haunt us. Our #$%$ movement is going beyond equal opportunity. What empowers Cook to speak for Apple about #$%$ Rights". Perhaps Cook is learning from President Obama and using executive power which he doesn't have. I've had it with Cook and hope to speak my mind at the shareholders meeting.