GOOG Mar 2020 1060.000 put

OPR - OPR Delayed Price. Currency in USD
41.50
0.00 (0.00%)
As of 3:07PM EDT. Market open.
Stock chart is not supported by your current browser
Previous Close23.90
Open24.50
Bid18.10
Ask18.70
Strike1,060.00
Expire Date2020-03-20
Day's Range23.90 - 24.50
Contract RangeN/A
Volume4
Open Interest26
  • Google Stock Stages October Rally Ahead Of Third-Quarter Earnings
    Investor's Business Daily

    Google Stock Stages October Rally Ahead Of Third-Quarter Earnings

    With earnings due in late October, Google stock has climbed nine out of the last 11 trading days. Google stock has risen well above its 50-day moving average, and has neared a buy point.

  • Amazon Needs a Leash
    Bloomberg

    Amazon Needs a Leash

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- The New Yorker and the Atlantic have never been known for their business coverage, so when both magazines published long articles about Amazon.com Inc. in their current issues it signaled that something is in the air. That something is antitrust.More precisely, what’s in the air is the question of what the government should do to rein in the tremendous power of the big four tech companies: Facebook Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Apple Inc. and Amazon.Once the province of think tanks and law reviews, this topic has become such a public concern that 48 of the 50 state attorneys general are conducting antitrust investigations, presidential hopefuls are calling for tech giants to be broken up, and general interest magazines like, well, the New Yorker and the Atlantic are asking whether the companies abuse their market power. In this particular case, the magazines are asking it about Amazon.The Atlantic article is by Franklin Foer, who has long raised concerns about Big Tech. Five years ago, for instance, he wrote a cover story for the New Republic titled “Amazon Must Be Stopped.” It focused on Amazon’s dominance over the book business.This time around, he is writing about the unbridled ambition of Amazon’s founder and chief executive officer Jeff Bezos. (The new article is “Jeff Bezos’s Master Plan.”) “Bezos’s ventures are by now so large and varied that it is difficult to truly comprehend the nature of his empire, much less the end point of his ambitions,” Foer writes. He then goes through a list. Bezos wants to conquer space with his company Blue Origin. Bezos’s ownership of the Washington Post makes him a significant media and political figure. Bezos’s brainchild, Amazon, “is the most awe-inspiring creation in the history of American business.” And so on.He also points out that while critics fear Amazon’s monopoly power, the company is loved by consumers. “A 2018 poll sponsored by Georgetown University and the Knight Foundation found that Amazon engendered greater confidence than virtually any other American institution,” he writes. I have no doubt that this is true; Amazon’s obsession with customer service instills tremendous loyalty among consumers. It’s no accident that over 100 million people now pay the company $119 a year to be Amazon Prime members. That loyalty is also one reason taking antitrust actions against Amazon would be much more difficult than going after Facebook or Google. I’ll get to some other reasons shortly.Charles Duhigg’s New Yorker article “Is Amazon Unstoppable?” is both smarter about Amazon and more pointed about its power. Duhigg captures its relentless culture, comparing it to a flywheel that never stops. He described Bezos’s efforts to ensure that Amazon never loses the feel of a scrappy startup. The phrase that came to mind as I was reading Duhigg’s article was Andy Grove’s famous dictum: “Only the paranoid survive.”Duhigg is also interested in what Amazon’s critics have to say. Amazon pays no U.S. taxes. Amazon’s work culture makes it nearly impossible for women who want children to have long careers there. Amazon’s warehouse workers are sometimes fired after being injured on the job. Amazon looks the other way when counterfeit goods are sold on its site. (In the article, Amazon’s representatives deny these allegations.)Then there’s the fact that Amazon both serves as a platform for companies wanting to sell things and sells things itself. In other words, it competes with the same companies it enables. According to Duhigg, Amazon has been known to track items that do well, and then make its own version of the same item — which it then sells at a discounted price. (Amazon denies this, too.) Margrethe Vestager, the European Union’s commissioner for competition, told Duhigg that the practice “deserves much more scrutiny.”The story’s killer anecdote, at least as it concerns antitrust, is about Birkenstock USA LP’s experience with Amazon. Although Birkenstock sold millions of dollars of shoes using the Amazon platform, it was constantly hearing customer complaints that the shoes were defective. Why? Because, according to Birkenstock, Amazon allowed counterfeits to be sold on the site. Not only would Amazon not take down the counterfeit goods, but it also wouldn’t even tell Birkenstock who was selling them.Amazon also had stocked a year’s worth of Birkenstock inventory, which terrified the company. “What if Amazon decides to start selling the shoes for 99 cents, or to give them away with Prime membership, or do a buy-one-get-one-free,” wondered Birkenstock’s chief executive officer, David Kahan. “We were powerless.”Kahan’s complaints went nowhere. So he pulled Birkenstocks off Amazon. What did Amazon do? It solicited Birkenstock retailers, offering to buy shoes directly from them. Today, if you search for Birkenstocks on Amazon you’ll be deluged with choices even though the company itself refuses to do business with Amazon. I found a pair of Arizona oiled leather sandals — listed on Birkenstock's website for $135 — marked down to $60 on Amazon. Is it the real thing, or is it a counterfeit?The hard question: What do you do about this kind of behavior? On one extreme is the Democratic presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren, who believes the most appropriate solution is to break up Amazon. At the other end of the spectrum, there are still plenty of antitrust economists who believe that if a $135 sandal is being sold for $60, that’s good for consumers. They argue that the government should just stay out of the way.I’m a proponent of breaking up Facebook, mainly because I believe if you force it to disgorge two of its prized platforms, Instagram and WhatsApp, you’ll instantly create serious competitors. That could help raise the bar on privacy, data usage and other concerns. But I’m not sure that would work with Amazon.For instance, if Amazon had to separate its highly profitable cloud service, Amazon Web Services, from its retail business the power dynamic between Amazon and the companies that use its platform would remain.What’s more, it’s harder to make a classic antitrust case against Amazon than it is against Facebook and Google. According to the research firm EMarketer Inc., Amazon is expected to account for 37.7% of all online commerce in 2019. By contrast, Google controls 89% of the search market.Still, for too many retailers, Amazon has the power to control their destiny, for good or ill. As the antitrust activist Lina Khan wrote in her now-famous 2017 article in the Yale Law Journal: “History suggests that allowing a single actor to set the terms of the marketplace, largely unchecked, can pose serious hazards.” I take that assessment to mean that government intervention at Amazon is needed.To my mind, the simplest and most sensible solution is from the economist Hal Singer: Don’t allow platform companies to favor their own products over competitors’ products. Singer calls this a “nondiscrimination regime,” and models it after the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act, which prevents cable distributors from favoring their own content over content from competitors. In that scenario, a company that felt it was being discriminated against by Amazon could bring a complaint to federal regulators just as cable stations can do now. This regime has worked well for the TV industry. It could work for Amazon, too.Secondly, the government should hold Amazon accountable for counterfeits. Counterfeiting is against the law, and although Amazon told Duhigg that it spends “hundreds of millions of dollars” on anti-counterfeiting efforts it’s no secret that many deceptively labeled goods are still sold on the site. (See, for instance, this recent Wall Street Journal story.) Companies like Birkenstock have a right to expect that a platform selling its products will rigorously police counterfeits — and will identify counterfeiters so manufacturers of authentic goods can take legal action.These are solvable problems. They don’t require extreme measures. What they do require is a government with the will to transform Amazon’s platform from what it is now, a vehicle that squelches competition, to one that lets competition flower.(Corrects paragraphs 12 and 13 to accurately reflect pricing disparities between sandals sold on Birkenstock's website and those sold on Amazon.)To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at jnocera3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at tobrien46@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Barrons.com

    Zoom’s CEO Says More Growth Is Coming, but the Valuation Is Still Sky High

    This year’s poster child for the stock market’s love of cloud-based enterprise software has to be Zoom Video Communications. Led by a management team sprinkled with Cisco alums, including CEO and founder Eric Yuan and CFO Kelly Steckelberg, Zoom has taken on (CSCO)’ (ticker: CSCO) WebEx, (MSFT)’s (MSFT) Skype, (GOOGL)’s (GOOGL) Google Hangouts, privately held BlueJeans, and a host of other rivals. At the peak, just north of $107, Zoom shares were trading at more than 50 times anticipated revenue for this fiscal year.

  • Three companies fined for April's fatal crane crash at Google's new Seattle campus
    American City Business Journals

    Three companies fined for April's fatal crane crash at Google's new Seattle campus

    Three companies were fined a total of $107,200 for reasons including not following the crane manufacturer's procedures for dismantling the structure.

  • Manufacturing & Retail Worries, Brexit, Q3 Earnings & Buy Google Stock - Free Lunch
    Zacks

    Manufacturing & Retail Worries, Brexit, Q3 Earnings & Buy Google Stock - Free Lunch

    Signs of hope for a Brexit deal and U.S.-China trade war updates. Some disappointing U.S. manufacturing and retail data. Q3 earnings results from the likes of Netflix. And why Google parent Alphabet is a Zack Ranks 1 (Strong Buy) stock. - Free Lunch

  • 3 Reasons Google Investors Should Worry about Amazon
    Market Realist

    3 Reasons Google Investors Should Worry about Amazon

    Google’s advertising market is under attack from Amazon, which also stands as an obstacle in the cloud and smart speaker markets.

  • France Retaliates to Google’s Refusal to Pay Publishers
    Market Realist

    France Retaliates to Google’s Refusal to Pay Publishers

    France wants the EU to set up a special supervisory body for big tech companies after Google has refused to pay publishes for article extracts.

  • Warren Restricts Campaign Donations from Big Tech CEOs to $200
    Market Realist

    Warren Restricts Campaign Donations from Big Tech CEOs to $200

    Elizabeth Warren's campaign plans to limit donations from big tech firms. The presidential candidate has discussed breaking up Facebook, Google, and Amazon.

  • Facebook Is Setting Up For New Breakout; But Is This FANG Stock A Good Buy?
    Investor's Business Daily

    Facebook Is Setting Up For New Breakout; But Is This FANG Stock A Good Buy?

    Facebook cleared a buy point in early July but have pulled back. Is the FANG stock a good buy? Here's what Facebook earnings and chart say.

  • Did Airbnb’s Contrarian Narrative Just Get Messed Up?
    Skift

    Did Airbnb’s Contrarian Narrative Just Get Messed Up?

    With Airbnb on the road to going public in 2020, the company has positioned itself as much different that loss-generating Uber, and those big-Google-spending online travel companies, Booking Holdings and Expedia Group. But new reporting on Airbnb's first quarter of 2019 performance at the least means Airbnb will have some explaining to do on that […]

  • TikTok and Facebook: Rivalry Continues to Escalate
    Market Realist

    TikTok and Facebook: Rivalry Continues to Escalate

    TikTok is poaching Facebook's (FB) employees, according to a CNBC report. As a result, the rivalry between the two social media businesses continues to escalate.

  • Barrons.com

    PayPal Widens Its Lead Among Digital-Wallet Providers

    The company is adding merchants and growing its lead among digital wallet providers, Morgan Stanley’s James Faucette wrote in advance of its third-quarter earnings report.

  • Bloomberg

    Save Some of That Facebook Fury for Policy Makers

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Fury is the prevailing feeling of 2019. People are angry much of the time about so many things. Sometimes, though, I wonder whether the anger is misdirected.Often, the targets are companies. There’s pressure on retailers like Walmart Inc. to restrict gun sales. There’s anger at Facebook Inc. for running a misleading political ad from President Donald Trump’s campaign. Some people are furious at oil companies for not doing more to slow climate change, and at Uber Technologies Inc. for taking advantage of drivers or worsening traffic-clogged cities.I get it. Actions of powerful companies or their failures to act can have a profound impact. They are legitimate targets for popular pressure, and companies can’t simply sell potentially harmful products or run their businesses in destructive ways and ignore the consequences.But this rage is not only about those individual companies. It’s also redirected fury about inaction by policy makers.People are mad about government inaction on gun violence, but policy makers are paralyzed and anger gets channeled at Walmart. People are mad about nonsensical political speech rules, failures to make laws on personal data privacy or corporate tax avoidance, but few Americans believe Congress or regulators will do anything. Instead, people are left to vent at companies.Have we gotten to the point where U.S. elected officials are so impotent that the only recourse is to hope profit-minded companies do the right thing — and then get angry when we believe they don’t? There are policies that companies can improve on their own, including employee pay and sexual harassment prevention. There is also a need for clarity from elected officials — either on their own or in concert with big companies.  Rules about political ads are one such example. I don’t want politicians to be able to mislead voters on Facebook, but the company is not solely responsible for the half-truth political attack ads that run on its services. Laws and tough regulation are a better approach than always relying on the wisdom of individual internet companies or television networks to make the tough calls.Gun policy, corporate tax avoidance, labor laws and protecting elections from cyberattacks are also matters policy makers are best placed to tackle. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Matt Levine wrote about the oddity of members of Congress being angry at failures by the Federal Trade Commission to restrict Facebook’s data collection practices when Congress could impose those restrictions by passing a law.I don’t want policy paralysis to absolve companies of responsibility for doing bad things or preventing harm. And companies are not innocent here, either. They fight against laws and regulation, which effectively gives themselves more responsibility — and they sometimes use government inaction to justify their own.Facebook for years fought to exclude itself from rules that mandate disclosures of who is behind political ads on other media such as broadcast television. And Amazon.com Inc.’s history includes advocating for a national sales tax law — which it knew was unlikely to happen — while it employed aggressive tactics to avoid charging sales tax in many U.S. states. (Amazon gave up fighting state sales taxes around 2012.) Facebook, Google and Amazon are now advocating for federal laws that sometimes feel like self-serving attempts to muzzle state or local rules they don’t like or to pass the buck on controversial company policies. When California recently did act to pass a law that could force Uber and other companies to treat contract workers as employees, Uber vowed to fight it and made a technical legal argument that a law tailor-made for Uber doesn’t apply to the company. Those tactics aside, it is hard to thread the needle between saying companies like Facebook and Amazon are way too powerful and also relying solely on them to always make hard policy decisions. That’s why we have elections and a government.A version of this column originally appeared in Bloomberg’s Fully Charged technology newsletter. You can sign up here.To contact the author of this story: Shira Ovide at sovide@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at dniemi1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Shira Ovide is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. She previously was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • IBM Surpasses Earnings, Revenues Fall Shy of Estimates in Q3
    Zacks

    IBM Surpasses Earnings, Revenues Fall Shy of Estimates in Q3

    IBM's blockchain, cloud and ML capabilities, among others poises its offerings well to gain robust adoption.

  • Snap launches dynamic ads to draw more advertisers
    Reuters

    Snap launches dynamic ads to draw more advertisers

    Snap has grown revenue and its userbase as larger rivals Alphabet's Google and Facebook Inc , which dominate the global digital advertising market, face regulatory scrutiny over their market control. Both Google and Facebook already offer dynamic ads. Dynamic ad platforms pick items from advertisers' product catalogs and target them automatically to people with relevant interests, removing the need to manually advertise each product individually.

  • Why residential developers are reportedly turning away from Google's Nest
    American City Business Journals

    Why residential developers are reportedly turning away from Google's Nest

    A number of large developers are reportedly turning away from the smart-home gadgets made by Google-owned Nest as the company exerts more control over the business unit.

  • Bloomberg

    Catalan Protesters Are Told to Avoid IPhone, Stick to Android

    (Bloomberg) -- Catalan independence activists looking for information on how to take part in the next protest against Spain can rely on a handy, two-day old app for details on when and where to go. The only catch: the app doesn’t work on iPhones.That’s caused iPhone-wielding campaigners to ask why they’re being left out of the loop. Democratic Tsunami, the group organizing the protests, and which created the app, says it’s simply about security.The reason is that Apple’s “App Store” has restrictive policies on such applications and it has already “censored” similar mechanisms for demonstrations in Hong Kong, Democratic Tsunami said in a statement published Wednesday on social media and instant messaging platforms.The app was released on Tuesday, the day after a Spanish Supreme Court ruling sentenced nine separatist leaders to a combined 100 years in prison, sparking the street protests that have led to three days of rioting on the streets of Barcelona.Spain’s Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska has said his department would investigate who is behind Tsunami Democratic, which has mobilized big demonstrations including a major protest at Barcelona airport. Police have made 96 arrests.Android users are made to download the app through a link, without having to go to the Google app store. But downloading the app is only the first step. Once a user has it, a QR code is required to access it and the only way to get the code is from somebody who already has it -- a strategy the activists say will help limit who has access to the information.The app was made public on Tuesday and by Wednesday afternoon it had 150,000 downloads, according to the statement from Democratic Tsunami.Apple’s press office in Madrid didn’t immediately respond to emails and phone calls seeking a company response.To contact the reporter on this story: Rodrigo Orihuela in Madrid at rorihuela@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Charles Penty at cpenty@bloomberg.net, Giles TurnerFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Bloomberg

    Builders Ditch Nest After Google Ties Devices to Digital Assistant

    (Bloomberg) -- Several residential builders have stopped buying and installing Google’s Nest devices after the internet giant overhauled how Nest technology works with other gadgets.The Alphabet Inc. unit bought Nest in 2014 for $3.2 billion to enter the so-called smart-home market. Nest has become one of the largest makers of internet-connected thermostats, smoke alarms and locks.The devices were popular with builders who saw a Nest gadget as a way to increase the value of properties. But earlier this year, that began to change as Google exerted more control over Nest and started changing the underlying technology.As a more independent business, Nest developed software that helped its gadgets communicate with a wide range of products from other manufacturers, through accounts set up directly by users.As of the end of August this year, however, consumers need a Google account -- and access to the company’s voice-based Google Assistant service -- to integrate new Nest products with other devices in their homes.The move may help the internet giant weave its Google Assistant deeper into people’s lives. But for builders it’s just a pain because Nest devices no longer work so well with the other gadgets they install in homes, such as audio and entertainment systems, and alarms and other security gear. It’s also a less enticing user proposition with all the privacy permissions that Google Assistant requires.That’s spurred some builders -- who collectively purchase tens of thousands of Nest devices each year -- to avoid Nest products.“We’ve stopped,” said Mark Zikra, vice president of technology at CA Ventures, which builds and operates apartments, senior homes and other property. “In an apartment complex we’re talking about 200, 300 devices that would be installed in one swoop and then all of a sudden everyone moves in. We don’t have the luxury of being able to say ‘hey are you a Google person or are you a Honeywell person?’”Similar sentiments were shared by others in the construction industry, including two large systems-integration firms that work with hundreds of builders across the U.S.For Sean Weiner, chief technology officer of Bravas Group, the main sticking point is Google’s decision to tie its digital assistant to Nest products going forward. Bravas installs smart-home devices and audio systems in about 3,500 high-end homes a year, and the ability to connect to as many different gadgets as possible is the most important feature. Digital assistants can’t handle these larger, more complex systems, according to Weiner.“If we put that control in the hands of Google, we’ve lost that control,” he said.This could dent Nest sales at a time when Google is trying to generate more revenue from consumer hardware. Commercial installers and builders are an important source of smart-home sales and Nest had developed a program to train professionals how to hook up its gadgets.Google has said it is being more selective with outside partners to increase security and privacy. At an event this week in New York City, the company highlighted how its home devices and smartphones work together to provide functionality that consumers can’t get unless they go all-in with Google technology. Still, the company is working to increase the number of other devices Nest products work with.That’s little comfort for builders in the midst of existing projects, such as David Berman who has been installing electronics in homes since the 1960s. Now, his company sets up networks of smart-home devices in thousands of homes a year. When Google said Nest’s integration technology was changing earlier this year, he stopped using the devices.“We were more or less forced into the switch,” he said. “When people buy a connected device, they expect it to connect. That’s not something that happens with Nest anymore.”Google isn’t alone in trying to tie its devices to a digital assistant. Amazon.com Inc. and Apple Inc. have pursued similar goals, and the smart-home market increasingly revolves around the tech giants, with manufacturers of light bulbs, thermostats, smoke alarms and more struggling to make their wares compatible with all three.Even though Nest has been owned by Google for five years, it hadn’t been fully pulled into the internet giant’s orbit until now.When Google announced the acquisition in 2014, Nest said it would only share user data with its own products and services, not Google’s. In a blog post, Nest co-founder Matt Rogers said “Nest data will stay with Nest” and that the company wasn’t changing its Terms of Service.It didn’t take long for that to change. And Rogers’s blog post is no longer available on Nest’s website. Less than six months after the deal, Nest said Google would connect some of its apps, letting Google know whether Nest users were at home or not. The integration allowed those people to set the temperature of their homes with voice commands and helped Google’s digital assistant set the temperature automatically when it detected the people were returning home.Initially, smart-home products connected to “home hubs” that acted as a gateway linking many devices -- even if they used different communication standards and protocols. “That idea has mostly died” as tech giants take over that central role with their voice assistants and smart speakers, said Frank Gillett, an analyst at Forrester Research.“This is a symptom of a larger challenge in the smart-home arena,” he added.Interoperability doesn’t need to be compromised for security and privacy, said Aaron Emigh, chief executive officer of Brilliant Home Technology Inc., which makes a centralized hub that hosts Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant.Amazon put Brilliant through many tests, ranging from audio quality to the ability to stop hacks. The same hasn’t happened with Google, he said. Google devices, such as its Home smart speakers, can be used to control Brilliant’s hub with your voice, but the integration is incomplete compared with Alexa, Emigh added.“What they’re doing is creating a lot of mistrust around Google and that’s then causing people to de-select Google and Nest as technology platforms,” Emigh said. “That’s happening in droves.”\--With assistance from Mark Bergen.To contact the reporter on this story: Gerrit De Vynck in New York at gdevynck@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at jward56@bloomberg.net, Alistair Barr, Vlad SavovFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Barrons.com

    Facebook and Google Have Happy Workers. It Might Be Helping Their Stocks.

    Do happy workers make for better stock returns? According to a note published Thursday by quantitative analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, there appears to be a correlation between employee satisfaction and stock returns. It is home to some tech giants, including (GOOGL) (ticker: GOOGL), (FB) (FB), and (NFLX)(NFLX), media firms like (DIS) (DIS), and telecom companies (T) (T), (CHTR) (CHTR), and (VZ) (VZ).

  • Huawei Debt Bulls Scoff at Trump Attacks
    Bloomberg

    Huawei Debt Bulls Scoff at Trump Attacks

    (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Blacklisting by the U.S. government, accusations of espionage and the arrest of its chief financial officer haven’t been enough to scare investors away from Huawei Technologies Co. Shares of China’s biggest telecoms equipment and smartphone maker aren’t publicly listed, making its equity largely unavailable to outsiders. Its bonds, however, do trade and have continued their upward trajectory over the past year, impervious to Donald Trump’s best efforts to make Huawei the biggest scalp in his trade war with China. Four different series of U.S. dollar bonds, with maturities in 2022 through 2027, have climbed as much as 5.6% since a low in December. That’s a lot for fixed-income markets. Even a massive drop in May — when the Trump administration moved to ban U.S. companies from selling vital components to Huawei — was shrugged off by debt investors within a month. Each of those securities is now within striking distance of record highs.The concern at that time, and which persists even today, is that shutting off access to American products such as semiconductors and software would hobble the world’s second-biggest smartphone maker. U.S. companies including Qualcomm Inc., Broadcom Inc. and Intel Corp. supply parts used in electronics products that are difficult to substitute, especially given that China lags behind in chip technology. Even a ban on Alphabet Inc.’s Google from supplying bits of its Android operating system to Huawei was considered a major blow, since Android is used on more than two-thirds of smartphones. The prohibition follows the December arrest of CFO Meng Wanzhou, who was detained in Canada at the request of the U.S. over allegations that include lying about the company’s dealings with Iran.Debt investors brushed off these worries, perhaps believing that Huawei’s status as a national hero coupled with its deep technological abilities ensure that the company would be able to pay its debts. Huawei was sitting on $39 billion of cash and short-term investments at the end of last year, with just $10.2 billion in total borrowings, according to its latest annual report.That makes Huawei’s $4.5 billion in outstanding bonds a trifle. And in the context of a slowing Chinese economy and concerns about the pileup of debt throughout the nation’s financial system, Huawei looks like one of the safest bets around.Such bullishness was rewarded this week when Huawei announced nine-month sales figures. Rather than get strangled by all those forces working against it, the Shenzhen-based company posted a 25% increase in third-quarter revenue to 209.5 billion yuan ($30 billion), according to my calculations. That’s 5% less than the prior quarter, but not the apocalyptic scenario many had expected. Importantly, it managed to maintain the 8.7% net profit margin it posted in the first half, which is actually higher than the same figure for full-year 2018. All of this goes to show that no matter what the U.S. and the economy throw at it, Huawei will be fine. Or at least its debt holders will.To contact the author of this story: Tim Culpan at tculpan1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick McDowell at pmcdowell10@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tim Culpan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. He previously covered technology for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • Bloomberg

    Apple Says 55% of iPhones From Past Four Years Run iOS 13

    (Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. on Wednesday said that 55% of iPhones introduced in the past four years are running iOS 13, the latest version of the company’s mobile operating system.The company shared the data on its website for third-party developers. It also reported that 50% of all iPhones are on iOS 13, while 33% of iPads are on iOS 13. Some older iPhones and iPads are no longer supported by the latest software.The four-year metric is important because that’s typically when people upgrade to new iPhones. Once people stop receiving new software updates, they’re more likely to buy a new handset from Apple.Apple likes to tout upgrade numbers in comparison to Google, which sees much slower adoption when it updates its Android operating system. iOS 13 added features like Dark Mode and a new Find My app to the iPhone, while the iPad gained a better web browser, file management app, and an updated Home screen.Despite users quickly upgrading to the new software, some consumers have been complaining about bugs. Apple has already released four updates to iOS 13 since the initial release on Sept. 19. Another update, iOS 13.2, is already in beta testing with developers. iOS 13.2 adds the ability to opt out of Siri recordings and switch between video recording resolutions on the iPhone 11 within the camera app.To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at mgurman1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net, Alistair BarrFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

  • GuruFocus.com

    Be Humble and Learn From Your Mistakes Like Warren Buffett

    Investors should perform post-mortems on their mistakes Continue reading...

  • Google Stock And A Strong Up/Down Volume Ratio: Why It's Key To Success For Stocks — Even IPOs
    Investor's Business Daily

    Google Stock And A Strong Up/Down Volume Ratio: Why It's Key To Success For Stocks — Even IPOs

    A positive up/down volume ratio is a good sign when a stock is trying to break out, including new IPOs. Consider Google stock Alphabet in 2004, the year of its market debut.

  • Google Pay Overcomes a Major Obstacle in Brazil
    Market Realist

    Google Pay Overcomes a Major Obstacle in Brazil

    Google has unlocked more potential for Google Pay in Brazil. The company has introduced a debit card payment function on Google Pay in the country.