I was wondering the same thing a couple of days ago. The iPhone5 hasn't got the buzz previous releases had, and the iPad mini seems to be less and later than comparable android 7" tablets. Apple is also putting increasing energy into patent lawsuits, which is another sign of a company resting on it's laurels. And of course they've lost Jobs.
Having said that, although I think it likely that Apple has peaked, I wouldn't short it just yet. I had the same opinion about Microsoft ten years ago during the years bewtween XP and Vista. Linux was surging ahead, Windows was going nowhere, lawsuits started flying and Bill Gates stepped down. Actually, now I commit this to text, the comparison is spookily similar!
But my point is that it took about 8 years before there was any effect on their share price. My experience is that what seems obvious to us now takes years to filter through to market sentiment. So if you're going to short Apple, do it 10 years out (if that's possible).
Tim Cook may be no Steve Jobs but he's no Steve Ballmer either...
(Though on the other hand as cash cows go the iPhone and iPad are no Windows and Office).
That said I think the whole Jobs thing is overstated at this point. It's not as if they didn't misstep with Jobs at the helm, and it's not as if they've been turning out bad products since he went (not to mention that everything "post-Jobs" they've done so far was in the pipeline while he was still in charge and would have had his blessing).
Before Steve Jobs got sick and started the war with Android, it was always that Apple could innovate their way out of any problem. Somehow Apple decided to stop innovating their way out or problems and file patent lawsuits like any other top dog billions of dollar corporations. It is not the way to do things and will turn around to bite Apple in the long run.
The iPod, the iPhone and the iPad in 11 years. That's a record of innovation that stands up to pretty much any company in the last dacade and a bit. The iPad itself came out less than three years ago and they've put out four versions of it plus the iPad mini taking it from a product that no-one had made work to a product that is now tearing a major chunk out of the laptop market.
Maybe it's just me but I think that's quite a rate of progress. The iPad is less than three years old and people are saying "what have they done lately?"
Put it in context, who is doing more? Who else has introduced just one product on that scale in the last five years? In the last ten?
People talk about the new innovative Microsoft but do the Surface, Windows Phone (both massively reactive plays) and Kinnect really stack up that well against what Apple are doing and have done in the same period (and I didn't mention the MacBook Air or Apple TV in there). Don't get me wrong, these are good products and it's great to see Microsoft upping their game (my background is as an MS developer and I always thought they got more criticism than they deserved so it's good to see them getting some credit).
Google have got Glasses which are interesting but still basically a prototype, ditto the car and Google TV which is going nowhere fast as far as I can tell. Android is a great OS but I'm not seeing the Android devices that your typical unbiased observer would sit next to an iPhone and think "that's just in a different class". Great phones (and now tablets) and there are certainly things that they can do that iOS can't but is it innovation on the scale of the original iPad or iPhone? It's always easier to make improvements when you're catching up as Android has been - now it's achieved parity I think we'll get to see what Android is really about. Other than that Plus is nice but hardly innovative, Hangouts likewise and from a business perspective Google remains at it's heart an advertising company.
I love what all these companies are doing - I love Google for Gmail, search and Reader, I love Apple hardware, I love that MS is raising it's game, I love that Samsung are making great phones that are pushing the form factor and keep Apple improving things which in turn will keep Samsung improving things (and I love my Samsung TV and the fact my iPhone is basically half Samsung components), I love what Amazon are doing with content and I love my Kindle.
What I don't understand is some of the lazy narratives that people want to put around these things, as if the lawsuits mean that Jonny Ive is no longer designing because he's training as a paralegal. The law suits were a dick move (almost entirely let's not forget driven by the Apple-isn't-the-same-without-him Steve Jobs - Tim Cook seems to have a far more pragmatic view on them) but I don't think they've changed a single thing Apple have been doing on the product side and I'd be really interested to see any evidence that says they have.
While being beholden to Wall Street is a double edged sword, you need to be a special sort of person to really work without being answerable to anyone in the way Jobs and Gates did.
I think Ballmer shows that for lesser mortals, some responsibility is a good thing.
The suggestion that Jobs was not answerable to Wall Street is false. Successful share price growth kept Wall Street from asking a lot of questions for a long time. Had there been less success, history might have repeated itself.
Even had he lived, Wall Street would have gotten the dividends they demanded. This in no way makes his success less impressive, but it is perhaps foolish to mythologize it.
Ballmer's position is very special for a blue chip tech company. It aligns his interests with those of the large index funds which are structured so as to require owning Microsoft stock over the long term.
To put Ballmer's holdings in perspective, $1.00 of share price change is about half a billion dollars in wealth. Or roughly equivalent to the headline grabbing stock options Cook at Apple will see mature in 2016.
The fifth revision of any product is going to lose some buzz. Remember when new iPods used to generate crazy coverage like the iPhone does today? Now even completely redesigned iPods (like the new Nano) get little mainstream attention. This is not Apple's fault - it is just inevitability, and the only way to fight it it to release completely new product categories (e.g. iPad).
The iPad Mini may be lesser in many ways to the Android 7inchers...but I think this is a smart business decision and in line with how Apple releases products. Apple knows that the first release of any new product will sell well...simply because it is the first of a new Apple product. By leaving out important features (retina, LTE, cameras), it ensures continual upgrade path that will last a few years. At least with the Mini, there is some supply chain justification for leaving out retina displays (which are probably in short demand after being chewed up by all the retina iPads, iPhones and now Macbooks). Leaving out the front camera on the original iPad (despite the obvious need for one) was just extreme cynicism.
The fact is Apple is a smart company that knows how to generate huge amounts of revenue and profits. It uses it's allure and cult-like appeal to sell lesser products at huge margins. Does this make it evil? I don't think so - it just shows it has played the game extraordinarily well.
True, but Apple does not have the corporate stronghold that Microsoft did/does although you could argue the App Store point. Also the upgrade cycle in the Apple profit center (iPhone) is only 2 years and is going to get hit hard by the lower ASPs that phones are seeing. I shorted at 674 (http://seekingalpha.com/article/839661-the-iphone-s-growth-r... - I'm dude111), and am going to continue to hold the position for now. I think the holiday quarter is going to be much weaker, in terms of profits, than anticipated.
Apple is killing it with sales of the iPad. 3 million in 3 days is pretty impressive. Combine that with the other refreshes and this Christmas should be another record breaker for Apple.
So not sure where you get this idea that Apple has peaked. If Apple has peaked then so has Google, Samsung, Microsoft etc.
Look at the stock market and the economy. See any patterns?
Look at the bank scandals and failing banks, foreclosed homes.
Corporations have made record profits at the expense of others, and then sued other companies in an attempt to destroy the competition and have more profits. Apple may or may not have peaked, but there is a big asskicking coming their way because of these frivolous patent lawsuits.
> Guess what happens when the $45 A-Pad Android Tablet comes to the USA and UK?
Absolutely nothing? The type of person that would buy the cheapest equipment available with no concerns other than price wouldn't have considered Apple to begin with. Why is the world driving around in overpriced cars when $3500 Tata Nanos are available?
As someone else replied, probably next to nothing.
Now get schools hooked up with some open source software that runs on Android and THEN try to get the local decision makers to buy that tablet over an iPad; which makes them look cool and hip; and then I will be impressed.
I live in Australia. We don't really have those problems here.
And your entire "price is the most important factor" has been disproven so many times by Apple et al that you just look stupid for bringing it up. Cheap tablets already exist and yet Apple still sold 3 million iPads in 3 days.
People will pay a premium to get the best, but apple isn't clearly the best anymore (except in terms of apps selection, and as app devs will go where the market is, apple may lose this advantage as well).
3 million devices in 3 days might be more impressive from someone else at this point. There are a lot of people that will line up to buy a new iPad even though they just bought the previous iPad a week ago.
Having said that, although I think it likely that Apple has peaked, I wouldn't short it just yet. I had the same opinion about Microsoft ten years ago during the years bewtween XP and Vista. Linux was surging ahead, Windows was going nowhere, lawsuits started flying and Bill Gates stepped down. Actually, now I commit this to text, the comparison is spookily similar!
But my point is that it took about 8 years before there was any effect on their share price. My experience is that what seems obvious to us now takes years to filter through to market sentiment. So if you're going to short Apple, do it 10 years out (if that's possible).