Recent Comments

  • Greg Lippert on Rothschild's analyst justifies his $400 Apple target (video) - 'Agreed, and why does Apple need cutting edge AI? The new Siri has replaced other AI for most of the everyday tasks. And it can help me find information on my devices – nobody else can or ever will have that access. If I need pro image tools, I have Adobe Creative Cloud or free tools from Gemini or Chat (or others). – If I need coding tools (I don’t) I would subscribe to Claude. – AI is baked into my web dev tools. What am I missing?'
  • David Emery on Rothschild's analyst justifies his $400 Apple target (video) - 'I disagree with the idea of Apple cutting deals with NVIDIA, because -someone- would have to invest the Gigabucks in data centers to hold those chips. Much better to let someone else do that, it’s not a business that Apple could contribute its special sauce to.'
  • Ben Gepp on Rothschild's analyst justifies his $400 Apple target (video) - 'Wouldn’t be surprised if Apple is exploring AI on multiple fronts..'
  • Bart Yee on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'With newer information from Gemini, I found I was underestimating Samsung’s smartphones portion of MX revenues. Whereas I thought other segments like Tablets, Wearables & Accessories (SmartWatches, Rings, tracker tags), and computers (Notebooks, Chromebooks and PC computers), plus Services had to make up at least 23-25% of total MX revenues, I was mistaken. Gemini estimates Samsung smartphones contribute 85% to 90% of MX revenues, while tablets only contribute 5-7%, Computers 2-4%, Wearables 4-6%, and Services 2-3%. So let’s call Samsung Smartphones the revenue driver at 87%. Using Samsung’s numbers, Smartphones brought in $22.9B x 87% = $19.9B USD. Given Omdia’s sales figures of 60.5M sales, Samsung’s ASP = $324. In contrast, Apple’s Q2 CY2026 iPhone revenue was $54.25B, 2.7X more revenue than Samsung, while selling 55.1M iPhones, 5M fewer. iPhone ASP = $985, >3.0x Samsung’s ASP. To put that in even starker perspective, here’s an excerpt from Xiaomi’s Q2 Earnings report: “According to Omdia, global smartphone shipments were down 6% year-over-year in the second quarter of 2026. Facing these headwinds, we proactively optimized our product mix and pricing strategy, while actively adjusting shipment cadence. Our global smartphone shipments reached 31.2 million units in this quarter, and our smartphone revenue reached RMB42.1 billion, with a gross profit margin of 8.5%. ((That’s just $6.24B in sales revenue, with a profit margin of $531M USD.)) We continued to advance our premiumization strategy and proactively improve our product mix. In the second quarter of 2026, the average selling price (“ASP”) of our smartphones reached a record high, up 25.9% year-over-year to RMB1,351. ((That’s $200, up from prior quarters’ $165)). According to third-party data, in the second quarter of 2026, our smartphone units with retail prices at or above RMB3,000 sold in the Chinese Mainland accounted for 32.1% of our total smartphone units sold, reaching a record high and up 4.5 percentage points year-over-year. In the RMB3,000-4,000 ($445-$600) segment in the Chinese Mainland, our market share reached 16.2%, up 3.3 percentage points year-over-year.” Smartphones make up 39% of total Xiaomi revenues. Xiaomi EV’a still sell and they made 17% more revenue while still losing $386M USD in that division. So the third largest smartphone maker Xiaomi has an ASP of $200, record high for them, but -7.5% revenue YoY. Apple’s ASP is almost 5.0x more than Xiaomi’s and its revenue is 8.7x higher than Xiaomi’s revenues. Such is the sales, revenue, and ASP disparities of Apple vs Android.'
  • Bart Yee on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'And lost among the hubbub of Apple’s earning was Samsung Electronics’ Q2 2026 earnings report the same day. While we all know the Device Solutions (DS) semiconductor side was making money hand over fist from extended HBM memory demand and soaring DRAM prices (collusion among the big three?) due to shifting of DRAM production facilities into higher profits HBM manufacturing, creating a artificial DRAM .shortage, there was much consternation within the Mobile eXperience (MX) division. You can see the report presentation here: https://images.samsung.com/is/content/samsung/assets/global/ir/docs/2026_2Q_conference_eng.pdf This Q2 quarter was the first full quarter of midrange and budget A-series and Galaxy S26 series smartphones, plus promotions driven sales trying to clear out old Z7 Foldables in anticipation of the new Z8 Foldables in July 2026. However, price increases introduced in late 2025 and early 2026, while producing a revenue increase of 14% YoY to 32.3T KRW $22.9B (but a seasonal decrease of 14% QoQ), did not offset the Memory cost increases caused by its sister Semiconductor DRAM Memory price increases. Literally the DS division’s success was partly paid for by MX division’s losses. Samsung’s MX chairman TM Roh had warned about potential profit LOSSES in the MX division due to soaring memory costs and it came to roost as Samsung MX division swung from a Q2 2025 profit of 3.1T KRW $2.2B USD to a FIRST EVER loss in the MX division of 0.7T KRW or $496M USD, close to half a billion in losses, a swing of -$2.7B USD. This is symptomatic of all Android vendors who sold and inhabited the slim to none profit budget and midrange tiers, and now the budget tier of <$200 is completely unprofitable, with models selling at a loss. Price increases push those device prices to midrange levels where even more intense competition will occur. However, continuing memory price increases will force lower midrange prices even higher, curtailing demand while slightly increasing revenues. Some vendors will judiciously keep trying promotions to stimulate sales but his will eat into what profitability they have left. Such was the case with Samsung where Gemini described Samsung’s tactics as forcing more profitable inventory of upper midrange and premium phones into carriers stores, but only getting them there with promotional support. While still generating revenues, the profits per phone are eaten away by the promotional costs, trading one PR statement (look, we are still selling more than Apple, and generating positive revenue increases) and hiding another (ahem, we lost money on smartphone sales for the first time in our history). The guidance wasn’t much better, trying to save face while being optimistic, but still cautious: 2Q 2026 Results ➢ MX • Revenue increased YoY, driven by solid flagship sales and A series expansion • Earnings declined due to elevated component cost pressures across the industry 2H 2026 Outlook ➢ MX • Strengthen AI leadership through personalized and intuitive experiences ((Whatever corporate doublespeak that means)) • Drive smartphone M/S growth through flagship-centric sales acceleration ✓ Expand flagship-led sales, centered on new Galaxy Z Fold8 and S26 series ✓ Enhance premium mix across Galaxy ecosystem and deliver AI-driven experiences in new form factors with the launch of 'Intelligent Eyewear' ((Oh, goody, yet more smart glasses)) • Pursue efficiency initiatives to mitigate impact of rising costs and protect profitability ((They say this every quarter so I don’t know how much more efficiency they can wring out short of layoffs)) Good luck with that, because Gemini noted Samsung premium model sales have always shown a 6-8 week intro surge and peak, followed by a rapid decline in the following months. When and if Samsung needs to, it begins heavy discounting or promotions trying to goose or reinvigorate sales for numbers at the cost of margins and profits. Android buyers know this from repeated sales cycles so many of them decline being first adopters and wait until heavy promotions are given. For the past few years, Samsung has resorted to strong introductory promotional campaigns and carrier subsidies to keep sales afloat, undercutting their margins for sales, now leading to actual losses selling smartphones. Then it resorts to introducing a “value” flagship Galaxy S26 FE model, that makes some sales but has lower profitability. Samsung can claim sales momentum into up, but then will have to acknowledge likely losses in Q3 as premium model sales taper further. A complete year loss for the MX division isn’t out of the question. apple news/ AWR6GIL4lSIun4CSzo5OQ4Q'
  • Gregg Thurman on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - '” It does something to satisfy people wanting Apple to do something new. ” That sounds suspiciously like the #1 reason to say no to a 1,000 good ideas.'
  • Bart Yee on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'In other news, Omdia reported: Omdia: Middle East smartphone market falls 19% in 2Q26 amid vendors prioritize profitability August 12, 2026 https://omdia.tech.informa.com/pr/2026/aug/omdia-middle-east-smartphone-market-falls-19percent-in-2q26-amid-vendors-prioritize-profitability LONDON, August 12, 2026: Smartphone shipments in the Middle East (excluding Turkey) fell 19% year-on-year (YoY) to 10.6 million units in 2Q26, the region’s sharpest decline rates since 4Q25, according to Omdia’s latest research. Price increases, supply constraints, and geopolitical uncertainty have pushed vendors to prioritize value over shipment volumes, while retailers across the region have adopted more cautious inventory strategies alongside weakening consumer confidence. Strategic premiumization reshapes market dynamics 2Q26 reflected a region-wide recalibration as vendors passed on escalating component costs while seeking to move upmarket through stronger mid-to-high-end positioning. Shipments of smartphones priced below $200 fell 42% compared with 2Q25, highlighting the significant pricing and supply challenges facing businesses focused on the entry-level segment. Markets with greater exposure to entry-level devices recorded some of the largest declines in the region, including Iraq, where shipments fell 36% YoY. Meanwhile, the mid-range has become the core strategic focus for OEMs. Rather than compromising specifications to defend volume, vendors are maintaining premium features, across memory and storage configurations, cameras, batteries and AI capabilities. Shipments of devices priced above $300 grew 16% year-on-year, with devices featuring 256GB of storage accounted for 55% of shipments demonstrating how OEMs are raising consumers’ baseline expectations. The premium segment also remained resilient, with shipments of devices priced above $800 reaching 1.9 million units – the highest Q2 high-end volume for the segment to date in the Middle East. Apple’s continued popularity was the biggest driver for the premium segment’s growth. The UAE and Qatar proved particularly receptive to vendors’ premiumization strategies. In the UAE, the developed retail ecosystem, including Sharaf DG, Emax and online platforms, leveraged installment financing to support higher-value upgrades, limiting the market’s decline to 7%. Meanwhile, Qatar’s 2% growth reflected relatively stable economic conditions and sustained premium demand. As a result of the challenges at the low-end and resilience across mid-to-high-end, the average selling price (ASP) surged 25% year-on-year to $448, the highest-ever ASP for a second quarter. Vendor performance reflects strategic positioning Samsung retained the top position with a 39% market share despite a 7% shipment decline, balancing the volume-driving Galaxy A-series with Galaxy S26 models positioned to protect profitability. HONOR grew 2% defending its position as the region’s second-largest vendor. TRANSSION and Xiaomi ranked third and fourth respectively, but both faced significant headwinds as persistent pricing pressures and declining affordability constrained demand among entry-level consumers. Shipments fell 40% for TRANSSION and 50% for Xiaomi. Both vendors’ cost-performance positioning has been challenged by limited flexibility to absorb component inflation without impacting demand. Apple grew 1% compared to 2Q25, as resilient premium demand, ecosystem strength and access to financing helped insulate it from broader market pressures in 2Q26. ((Note Apple’s 1.1M sales out of the 1.9M premiums sales, giving it a leading 58% of total premium sales, see the article’s sales chart. Remember, MEA is a relatively small market region for Apple but one which does have a moderately strong premium segment. It’s not clear whether any anti-American sentiment being created by this administration’s bumbling aggression and the lack of clear peace process will alienate MEA Apple users. Hopefully they can easily separate Apple as the antithesis of the current administration.))'
  • Bart Yee on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'The other article from InvestorHub: finance.yahoo com/markets /stocks/articles/rothschild-upgrades-apple-buy-foldable-103534031.html “ Rothschild & Co Redburn has upgraded Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) from Neutral to Buy and lifted its price target sharply to $400 from $260, citing the company’s expected entry into foldable smartphones alongside the potential evolution of its artificial intelligence strategy. Analysts led by Timm Schulze-Melander said Apple’s AI offering, Apple Intelligence, has so far fallen short of expectations, with the technology group relying on a customised version of Google’s Gemini model for capabilities including an upgraded Siri. Apple is reportedly paying Google around $1 billion annually to access the model. At the same time, Google continues to pay Apple approximately $27.5 billion each year to secure search placement across its devices. Open-source AI could reduce Apple’s dependence on Google Redburn believes Apple could improve its competitive position by embracing open-source AI models, potentially through a partnership with Nvidia. The analysts described such an approach as “Fast Follower 2.0.” The team highlighted Nvidia’s Nemotron models, saying the technology “matches closed, frontier model performance” and could provide Apple with an alternative to its current dependence on Google’s AI technology. However, the analysts acknowledged that relations between Apple and Nvidia have previously been “genuinely acrimonious,” potentially complicating any closer partnership between the companies. A shift towards open-source models could nevertheless give Apple greater flexibility as it attempts to strengthen its position in generative AI without bearing all the costs and development risks associated with building frontier models internally. Foldable iPhone could provide new growth catalyst Another central factor behind Redburn’s upgrade is Apple’s anticipated launch of a foldable iPhone, expected in September. The broker forecasts sales of 14 million iPhone Ultra units during fiscal 2027 and estimates that only 4 million of those purchases will replace demand that would otherwise have gone towards conventional iPhones. Redburn expects the new device to be priced at $2,199, representing an 83% premium to the iPhone 17 Pro Max. The analysts argued that Apple’s history suggests it could significantly expand the foldable smartphone category rather than simply take market share from existing manufacturers. They pointed to AirPods and Apple Watch as examples, with Apple capturing between 65% and 75% of incremental unit growth in their respective product categories following launch. Redburn expects the foldable model to increase average iPhone selling prices by 11% by June 2027. Revenue and earnings estimates move above consensus The broker’s confidence in the foldable strategy has resulted in significantly more optimistic forecasts for Apple’s core smartphone business. Redburn’s iPhone revenue projections are between 3% and 14% above consensus estimates across fiscal 2026 to fiscal 2030. Its overall earnings forecasts are also increasingly bullish over the longer term, reaching between 8% and 18% above consensus by fiscal 2030. The combination of higher device prices, incremental unit demand and a potentially more flexible AI strategy forms the central argument behind the new $400 price target. Production and consumer adoption remain key risks Redburn nevertheless identified several risks that could challenge its investment thesis. Potential delays to production of the foldable iPhone are one concern, while technical difficulties surrounding display “crease visibility” and hinge durability could complicate manufacturing or affect consumer perceptions of the device. Apple’s continued dependence on third-party AI models also remains a strategic risk if the company is unable to establish a more independent approach to artificial intelligence. Consumer demand for foldable smartphones represents another uncertainty. The analysts noted that a 2023 CNET survey found 64% of consumers did not want a foldable handset. More recent research offers a considerably more encouraging picture for Apple, however. A Forbes survey found that 61% of consumers “would gain immediate confidence” in foldable smartphones if Apple entered the category.” Apple legitimizing yet another hardware category while immediately taking >38-48% of sales share in its first year. And Apple paying $1B for Gemini vs Google paying Apple $27+B for iOS search placement and partial ad revenues seems like a pretty good deal for Apple. 🙂 If Apple allows users choices of open source AI via Apps or choice, so much the better, Users get to choose which AI works for them, Apple doesn’t spend much if anything and gets incremental Services revenues.'
  • Bart Yee on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'Other articles with the Rothschild story: stocktwits: finance.yahoo com/markets /stocks/articles/apple-next-big-catalysts-analyst-105006313.html • Schulze-Melander expects Apple to launch the iPhone Ultra in September, giving it a new product category to tap while potentially lifting the average selling price of its broader iPhone lineup. • The analyst estimates the device could cost $2,199, or about an 83% premium to the iPhone 17 Pro Max, meaning even relatively modest volumes could have a meaningful impact on Apple’s revenue mix. • The firm expects the foldable iPhone to increase Apple’s average selling price for the iPhone lineup by 11% by June 2027. “ According to an Investing.com report, Schulze-Melander expects the foldable iPhone to sell 14 million units in fiscal 2027, with only about four million of those sales coming at the expense of conventional iPhones. (~29%) The analyst estimates the device could cost $2,199, or about an 83% premium to the iPhone 17 Pro Max, meaning even relatively modest volumes could have a meaningful impact on Apple’s revenue mix. The firm expects the foldable iPhone to increase Apple’s average selling price for the iPhone lineup by 11% by June 2027. It also forecasts iPhone revenue to come in up to 14% above consensus estimates across fiscal 2026 through fiscal 2030, while projecting roughly 12% annual iPhone sales growth over the period.” Current FYTD blended iphone ASP’s run conservatively about $1050, up from $847 to $867, already a 20+% increase due to the success of the iPhone 17 series. If the iPhone ASP were to jump another 11%, that would put ASP at $1165, not far off from my $1100 estimate for FY2027. Imagine that, in a “mature market” where sales increases are hard to come by and now increasing prices will reduce demand and sales for most makers, Apple is actually able to raise prices by going up-up market, AND closely maintain sales volume or at worst, mitigate sales losses, all the while managing to increase iPhone AND related Services revenues, something only Huawei can do at a much lower scale and only in China. Samsung has little to no secondary services revenues, and Google sells ads with smartphone hardware as basically an afterthought.'
  • Bart Yee on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'David, Steven, Rodney, Gregg, et. al. who don’t see themselves buying or spending for an iPhone Ultra wide Foldable, it’s perfectly ok and acceptable to NOT be interested in this new product. Some recent consumer surveys say about 65% of consumers aren’t interested, use cases, high cost, size & format being reasons why not to buy. That’s perfectly OK. What it also does mean is ~33% of consumers ARE interested and may consider it as an option for their next smartphone, including current well heeled iPhone users who already use an iPhone & iPad combination, and curious “cream of Android” users that Android can ill-afford to lose to Apple. Given that projections suggest 7-10M sales for CY2026, that’s only 3-4% of an estimated 252M sales, so just 3.7-4 people out of 100 sales needs to buy the Ultra to make moderately successful. That’s perfectly OK and would be the same for FY2027. I’m pretty confident Apple’s users, especially in foldable happy China, would see their own use cases, status symbols, and content consumption plus productivity for a foldable iPhone that expands to the size of an iPad mini that can fit in their pocket or purse. Given that an iPhone Pro (not Max) is around $1300 (for now) for 512GB, and an iPad mini is $900 for the same 512GB model, that’s already $2200 and you’re paying for DRAM twice. Assume the cameras are Pro worthy but not all three, and battery life is day to day and a half long. Apple Intelligence and Siri AI are a given and a must for all major regions with China available If you can get that all in one foldable package, that fits in your pocket or purse, and can function as your only need computing and media consumption device, and is eminently recognizable by shape, color and design as being an iPhone rather than a Samsung, Huawei, Google or other Chinese OEM foldable, suddenly, your taste, choice and yes, even social status becomes evident. On top of that, there should be numerous productivity apps ported over from iPhone and iPads, along with useful accessories like Apple Pencil 2.0, Magic Keyboards, and new stands, chargers, and battery packs that extend usefulness. Tie that in with AirPods Pro 4, and you have a less cumbersome 2D Vision Pro but still has spatial photography capability. IMO, if Apple can bring in the starting price under $2300, they can sell their target 17-18M in the first sales year. And for those NOT interested, it’s ok, you will join the 90-94% of iPhone sales who won’t buy them.'
  • John Konopka on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'Having done some marketing (at a very small company) I respect people’s varied interests and their ability to hide them from me. 🙂 There could be a number of reasons that this works for some people. 10M in a year would be about 4 or 5 percent of iPhones sold last year. Some will be new customers, some will cannibalize other iPhones. Probably not much effect on the bottom line. It does something to satisfy people wanting Apple to do something new. It may also have a halo effect as people drop by an Apple Store to see the new thing and walk away with something else. Like with many Apple products, we probably need to look out 3 to 5 years to see the real effect of this product. I would guess it will start showing up as product placement in TV shows and movies as people want to show off the futuristic, hip new product. I wonder if the new Siri will get this treatment? Maybe when Timmy falls down a well he’ll as Siri to call Lassie.'
  • Gregg Thurman on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'I just don’t see the job an oversized iPhone could do that I would make me shell out $2,000 plus tax. For the cost of a ‘foldable’ I could buy 6, maybe 7, shares of AAPL. In 4 years it’ll be time to upgrade that ‘foldable’ (another outlay of ~$1,000) and the 6/7 shares of AAPL will have split ~3:1, paid about $200 in dividends, and be trading at about $250per share. That’s too steep a price to pay to satisfy an emotional need, Veldon effect or not.'
  • Bart Yee on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'David said “I’m sure Apple will sell a bunch of anything it makes. But will they sell enough to make a significant difference in the bottom line?“ A quick cocktail napkin analysis: Projections suggest 7-10M iPhone Ultra’s sold in the 2H 2026 year, then 10-12M for the first 3 quarters of 2027, coinciding with Apple’s Fiscal year or so. Maybe Apple opens preorders in October as the FY opens to build demand & push revenues into Q1? Initial production and inventory will be relatively limited so waits in the US, Europe and especially China may be lengthy. If we assume a conservative $2300 ASP per unit, at a conservative 8.5M sold in Q1 FY2027, that’s $19.5B added to Q1 iPhone revenues. Consider shaving 20% for cannibalized Pro model sales and you get a net $15.6B in additional Q1 iPhone revenues. It’s not clear how many sales will be Android conquest/switcher sales but I anticipate 10-15% (850K-1.28M) of Ultra sales to be such, most being in China. With the split intro schedule pushing the base iPhone 18, Air & 18e models to next year, it will be hard to estimate total iPhone revenue in Q1 YoY but consider that an Ultra sale represents 2.5-3x base iPhone 18 sale and 2x a Pro Model sale. If we parcel out the remaining 11M sales over the three quarters as 5-3-3, at the same $2300 ASP, that’s a total of net $9.2B, 5.5B and $5.5B added to Q2, Q3 and Q4 respectively. Assuming Apple finishes FY2026 with at least 19.6% iPhone revenue increase to ~$250B, the Total FY2027 iPhone additional revenue would be nearly $36B higher revenues with Ultra Foldables added and status quo on the rest, moving to $286B and “only” a +14% YoY comparison to 2026. This result would come in the face of 2027’s continued memory costs inflation, geopolitical uncertainty, and off and on foreign exchange issues. So David, would you take low to mid double digit iPhone revenue growth in an “already mature smartphone market”? I could see Apple sales volume rising to 255-260M sales by end of FY2027, and ASP’s rising to over $1050-1100 giving $267B total exactly $286B iPhone revenues, matching my estimate above. Hopefully by Q1 FY2028 we will start seeing AI spending fever begin to slow as ROI becomes much more of an expectation than spending, and memory prices for mobile DRAM starts coming down. If Apple passes some of that savings back to consumer prices, watch out for even more increased sales volumes. Oh, did I mention continued boring low to mid-teens (13-15%) Services revenues growth and sell all you can Mac revenues? No wonder Rothschild upped their price target. Let’s get to $350 first and go from there, shall we?'
  • Daniel Epstein on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'I watched the interview live. CNBC buried the “lead” before the interview by saying the analyst was a big fan of the foldable phone and barely mentioned his upgrade for the stock. And of course the stock price for today didn’t react with any excitement. So the downgrade of Apple Stock by Jeffries was big news but this upgrade barely gets mentioned in comparison. By the way isn’t that price target familiar? Several other analysts have talked about 400 per share. At least before the pullback after earnings a couple of weeks ago. So maybe the story for the stock is intact. Just needs repeating.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'I’m always amazed at how excited analysts can get over unannounced Apple products, and how blaise they can be over announced Apple products with a clear market advantage.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'The analyst was interviewed on CNBC on the price target upgrade and his excitement over the forthcoming foldable iPhone: https://apple.news/Am2ZHlc6aThmkfXW0A6bskw'
  • Rodney Avilla on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'Someone at Rothschild got a subscription to PED 3.0'
  • Rodney Avilla on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'I do a lot of reading on my iPhone and a small iPad that fits in my pocket would be, for me, desirable. However, I will check it out in the store before buying one.'
  • Steven Philips on Germany removes a brick from Apple's walled garden - '“Just another brick in the wall.”'
  • Steven Philips on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'Gregg talks and Rothschild listens! 🙂'
  • Greg Lippert on Rothschild catapults its Apple target $140 to $400 - 'Agreed, it’s coming along nicely and do you think Apple is ever gonna stop? Hell no!!!! That’s not how they roll.'
  • Steven Philips on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'I think it’s maybe like the original iPhone concept. Why would I want that? Then after actually using one, “Oh! I see.” Will it add something that it turns out that I value enough to offset the added size, weight and cost? I doubt it, but I’ll wait and see.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Apple's 'chipflation' dilemma: Margins or market share? - 'Couldn’t find a better thread for this: Nvidia is going to finance Open AI’s next purchase of GPUs to the tune of $105 Billion. I wouldn’t touch either equity with a 20 foot pole. Both of their Balance sheets depend on AI revenue that has yet to be proven. Further Apple’s AI (Apple Intelligence) is going to take a big chunk of data center’s TAM for revenue before data center boosters complete their expansion. These deals have all the markings of a house built of well worn cards.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on Premarket: Apple is green - 'It’s a challenging day on the Street as we approach 2pm in the east with all four major indexes in the red and 70% of S&P 500 components showing off the same color. Alphabet is off 0.81% at $340.75, Microsoft is down 3.25% at $479.28, Meta has dropped 4.20% at $565.10 and Amazon has given back 1.58% at $258.50. It’s a tough day for hyperscalers. On the other side of the performance teeter-totter Corning is ahead 6.31% at $176.47 and SanDisk is powering up by 9.35% at $1,794.59. Apple is in the red 0.53% at $304.30 at the top of the hour.'
  • David Gleason on TheStreet: The market is ripe for a foldable Apple iPhone - 'What is the market for foldable phones? I have tried to think of a reason to use one, but I’m coming up empty. Is it simply new tech for the sake of being new?'
  • David Emery on Apple offers Epic 5% to 15% - 'Yeah, but what happens if those major investors vote no-confidence? I’m -guessing- that the investors in Epic aren’t the same as the sheeple on Spacex’s board… 🙂 Presumably the agreements for those investments have a lot of specifics on how the investors and the board interact. (The small company I worked for had a couple outside investors with shareholder agreement. That agreement eventually ended up being tested in court when the outside investors challenged the founder. A few of us employee shareholders ended up with the controlling difference; the other 2 sides each had about 48% of the company. After that lawsuit was settled, the company went back to the big-name law firm that drafted the ambiguous agreement, and the law firm settled.)'
  • David Emery on Germany removes a brick from Apple's walled garden - 'Cui Boni? (Who benefits?)'
  • Gregg Thurman on Apple offers Epic 5% to 15% - 'Doesn’t Sweeney own majority shares? If he does it will take a court order (competency suit) to wrest control from him.'
  • James Hillhouse on Germany removes a brick from Apple's walled garden - 'I guess the view of the EU and European governments is that if you can’t compete against Apple and other US tech companies, then pedantically regulate them. Because to enable Europe to actually compete and innovate would require a great deal of soul searching and soul crushing political and cultural changes.'
  • David Emery on Apple offers Epic 5% to 15% - 'A thought occurred to me while on the exercise machine: Do you think the investors in Epic are just waiting for Sweeney to finish self-destructing, before installing competent leadership?'