Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58818 > unrolled thread

Apple (AAPL) stock split

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-23 20:15 -0400
    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 21:55 -0400
      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-25 15:57 -0400
      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 09:51 -0400
        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:16 -0400
          Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-26 20:54 -0400
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-26 21:55 -0400
              Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 10:53 -0400
                Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-27 16:37 -0400
                  Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-27 16:42 -0400
                  Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 16:54 -0400
                    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split bknight@conramp.net - 2014-04-27 16:07 -0500
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-27 17:15 -0400
                        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-28 02:40 -0400
                          Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 16:42 -0400
                            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-28 17:03 -0400
                              Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2014-04-29 19:17 -0400
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-29 08:15 -0500
    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:36 -0400
      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-23 22:59 -0400
        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-23 21:24 -0700
        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-24 16:54 +0000
          Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 18:00 -0400
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-24 23:18 +0000
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 18:41 -0700
              Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-24 22:10 -0400
                Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 20:50 -0700
                  Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 00:35 -0400
                    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-04-24 23:23 -0700
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 05:04 -0400
                      Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-25 11:26 +0200
                        Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-25 06:05 -0400
                    Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split xfile <nospam@nospam.com> - 2014-04-26 09:55 +0800
            Re: Apple (AAPL) stock split Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-04-25 08:13 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#58836

In article <53587e2c$0$50751$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> In USA, Apple now supports HBO-Go app on Apple TV 

It has for a few years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58851

On 2014-04-24, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Apple TV no longer "hobby".
>
> Sales of over $1 billion are not considered a "hobby".
>
> Apple continues to invest to make it better. (aka: admission that no
> "revolution" is coming to Apple TV, it will be incremental).

More pure speculation from the doom and gloom crowd.

> In USA, Apple now supports HBO-Go app on Apple TV (authenticated access,
> authenticates against your cable TV company, only those subscribed to
> HBO on their TV can access HBO-GO via internet)

No, HBO-Go has been supported for ages. What just got added recently are
A&E, Lifetime, and History channels.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58860

On 14-04-24 12:54, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Apple continues to invest to make it better. (aka: admission that no
>> "revolution" is coming to Apple TV, it will be incremental).
> 
> More pure speculation from the doom and gloom crowd.

Suggest you listen, as I did, to the analyst teleconference where Tim
Cook responds to a question from journalist about the future of Apple TV
and the drop of "hobby" from it.

> No, HBO-Go has been supported for ages. What just got added recently are
> A&E, Lifetime, and History channels.


Interesting that it got mentioned in yesterday's analyst teleconference.
Figured it was new.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58865

On 2014-04-24, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-04-24 12:54, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>>> Apple continues to invest to make it better. (aka: admission that no
>>> "revolution" is coming to Apple TV, it will be incremental).
>> 
>> More pure speculation from the doom and gloom crowd.
>
> Suggest you listen, as I did, to the analyst teleconference where Tim
> Cook responds to a question from journalist about the future of Apple TV
> and the drop of "hobby" from it.

You obviously hear what you want to hear.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58868

In article <535989c5$0$2738$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >> Apple continues to invest to make it better. (aka: admission that no
> >> "revolution" is coming to Apple TV, it will be incremental).
> > 
> > More pure speculation from the doom and gloom crowd.
> 
> Suggest you listen, as I did, to the analyst teleconference where Tim
> Cook responds to a question from journalist about the future of Apple TV
> and the drop of "hobby" from it.

What does that have to do with whether there will be incremental or
revolutionary advances?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58869

On 14-04-24 21:41, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> What does that have to do with whether there will be incremental or
> revolutionary advances?


Because Tim Cook, responded to the question by stating that Apple will
continue to improve the current Apple TV, and that this was already big
enough to no longer be a hobby because it represented sales of over $1
billion.

You may recall that since the last year of Steve Jobs, there was
speculation that Apple would come out with something BIG to
revolutionlize the TV industry.

So Cook basically killed those rumours and brought the Wall Street
Casino analysts down to earth by confirming that the current Apple TV
will evolve instead of something totally new and revolutionary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58872

In article <5359c422$0$10860$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Because Tim Cook, responded to the question by stating that Apple will
> continue to improve the current Apple TV,

Actually, he didn't say that; he said, "Also, from a investment point
of view, we continue to make the product better and better."  Making it
"better and better" could mean incremental improvements to the current
model, or it could mean replacing it with a new model.

> and that this was already big enough to no longer be a hobby because
> it represented sales of over $1 billion.

True, but irrelevant to your point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58878

On 14-04-24 23:50, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Actually, he didn't say that; he said, "Also, from a investment point
> of view, we continue to make the product better and better."  Making it
> "better and better" could mean incremental improvements to the current
> model, or it could mean replacing it with a new model.

Nop. from an investment point of view, it means they are not investing
to replace Apple TV, they are spending moey to improve it incrementally.

basically, it is the signal that Apple ain't gonna sell great big TV
sets with the Apple TV embedded. They will continue to sell a small box
that connects to other people's TV sets.

And from the buzz outside of the official teleconferences, it appears
Apple is more akin to working to add monopoly cable company/TV network
support than to start to compete against them with its own streaming
products. (especially true in the USA where the FCC is about to shutdown
the internet as we know it and turn it into a cableco walled garden).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58882

In article <5359e617$0$22500$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Actually, he didn't say that; he said, "Also, from a investment point
> > of view, we continue to make the product better and better."  Making it
> > "better and better" could mean incremental improvements to the current
> > model, or it could mean replacing it with a new model.
> 
> Nop. from an investment point of view, it means they are not investing
> to replace Apple TV, they are spending moey to improve it incrementally.

That makes absolutely no sense.

> basically, it is the signal that Apple ain't gonna sell great big TV
> sets with the Apple TV embedded.

It's certainly not a signal about what's in store for the Apple TV set
top box.  Cook is too savvy to give any clues about whether an actual
TV set is in the pipeline; it's not any sort of signal about such a
device.

> And from the buzz outside of the official teleconferences, it appears
> Apple is more akin to working to add monopoly cable company/TV network
> support than to start to compete against them with its own streaming
> products.

That has nothing to do with whether the Apple TV will receive
incremental improvements as with the 2 to the 3, or whether it will be
a replacement, as with the 1 to the 2.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58884

On 14-04-25 02:23, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> It's certainly not a signal about what's in store for the Apple TV set
> top box.  Cook is too savvy to give any clues about whether an actual
> TV set is in the pipeline; it's not any sort of signal about such a
> device.


Cook and Jobs before had sent signals of "something big for TV", with
the then current Apple TV being  just dipping toes to test the waters.

What Cook said to financial analysts this week is that for now, the TV
strategy will focus on improving Apple TV instead of "something big".

And it makes sense.  Cook would have realised that the rights cold war
has gotten worse, with cable companies controlling content more and more
and not about to let it go to a competitor the size of Apple. So a
revolutionary way to deliver content to some Apple TV (box or TV set) is
not realistic (for now).

So the best way is to just evolve the Apple TV by making gradual
improvements to it. (adding apps/game console functions would be one
such improvement).


Even Netflix got sticks thrown into its wheels by Comcast with Verizon
and AT&T anxiously waiting for their opportunity to do the same. These
guys aren't about to let the internet kill their more profitable TV
distribution business

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58885

In article <240420142323074619%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <5359e617$0$22500$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > > Actually, he didn't say that; he said, "Also, from a investment point
> > > of view, we continue to make the product better and better."  Making it
> > > "better and better" could mean incremental improvements to the current
> > > model, or it could mean replacing it with a new model.
> > 
> > Nop. from an investment point of view, it means they are not investing
> > to replace Apple TV, they are spending moey to improve it incrementally.
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> > basically, it is the signal that Apple ain't gonna sell great big TV
> > sets with the Apple TV embedded.
> 
> It's certainly not a signal about what's in store for the Apple TV set
> top box.  Cook is too savvy to give any clues about whether an actual
> TV set is in the pipeline; it's not any sort of signal about such a
> device.
> 
> > And from the buzz outside of the official teleconferences, it appears
> > Apple is more akin to working to add monopoly cable company/TV network
> > support than to start to compete against them with its own streaming
> > products.
> 
> That has nothing to do with whether the Apple TV will receive
> incremental improvements as with the 2 to the 3, or whether it will be
> a replacement, as with the 1 to the 2.

The iTelly has been in the pipeline for 25 years or something. .
Let's face it: Samsung beat them to it! Who watch it, wants it or needs 
it?
-- 
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58886

On 14-04-25 05:26, android wrote:

> The iTelly has been in the pipeline for 25 years or something. .
> Let's face it: Samsung beat them to it! Who watch it, wants it or needs 
> it?


More importantly, it is a crowded market with very low margins. Sharp
went into bankruptcy protection as I recall. This isn't a market Apple
would be intertested into, unless it had a compelling and different
offering, and that would require access to content to provide a totally
new way to deliver entertainment, and that isn't happening soon.

And Apple would also need to build an Apple branded TV installation
force. When you buy a big TV, you expect the store to deliver it to you
and offer installation service. That is something existing local TV
shops do already and something Apple stores don't do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58904

 > Nop. from an investment point of view, it means they are not investing
 > to replace Apple TV, they are spending moey to improve it incrementally.
 >
 > basically, it is the signal that Apple ain't gonna sell great big TV
 > sets with the Apple TV embedded. They will continue to sell a small box
 > that connects to other people's TV sets.
 >

My understanding of Apple (which certainly can be wrong) is that they 
are not just a "hardware-oriented" company in the sense that they will 
not just come out a TV set or watch or anything else without also 
considering the underlying OS (user experience and functionalists/apps 
support), and most importantly, contents that users will use.

They may or may not come out a new TV set or change the current Apple TV 
or a new watch, but I do believe what they have been talking about that 
they are not aiming to come out something first but to come out 
something when they believe that it will bring out a new experience - 
integrated with hardware, OS, and contents.

If they can't, they would rather to wait.

So you may or may not be correct, but other than a few, no one knows for 
sure.

On 4/25/2014 12:35 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-04-24 23:50, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> Actually, he didn't say that; he said, "Also, from a investment point
>> of view, we continue to make the product better and better."  Making it
>> "better and better" could mean incremental improvements to the current
>> model, or it could mean replacing it with a new model.
>
> Nop. from an investment point of view, it means they are not investing
> to replace Apple TV, they are spending moey to improve it incrementally.
>
> basically, it is the signal that Apple ain't gonna sell great big TV
> sets with the Apple TV embedded. They will continue to sell a small box
> that connects to other people's TV sets.
>
> And from the buzz outside of the official teleconferences, it appears
> Apple is more akin to working to add monopoly cable company/TV network
> support than to start to compete against them with its own streaming
> products. (especially true in the USA where the FCC is about to shutdown
> the internet as we know it and turn it into a cableco walled garden).
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58888

On 2014-04-24 22:00:48 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> On 14-04-24 12:54, Jolly Roger wrote:
> 
>>> Apple continues to invest to make it better. (aka: admission that no
>>> "revolution" is coming to Apple TV, it will be incremental).
>> 
>> More pure speculation from the doom and gloom crowd.
> 
> Suggest you listen, as I did, to the analyst teleconference where Tim
> Cook responds to a question from journalist about the future of Apple TV
> and the drop of "hobby" from it.
> 
>> No, HBO-Go has been supported for ages. What just got added recently are
>> A&E, Lifetime, and History channels.
> 
> 
> Interesting that it got mentioned in yesterday's analyst teleconference.
> Figured it was new.

I think that was just a response to Amazon's announced deal for old HBO 
content.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web