Seeking Alpha

Gandhi

Gandhi
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Gandhi's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why Apple Bought Anobit [View article]
    Apple switched from PowerPC to Intel.
    They switched to ARM processors.

    They have switched, and switched successfully.
    Jan 12 03:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Bought Anobit [View article]
    AAPL will hit $500 by the time iPad 3 is introduced in March 2012
    Jan 12 03:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Should Borrow Cash and Pay Out a Whopping Dividend [View article]
    Well, at the rate we are going, I doubt humanity will be around in 18,000 years, much less Apple. But that is an ambitious price target so far out in the future :)
    Aug 5 03:14 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 Moves That Could Drive Apple's Stock Price to $500 or Up 25% [View article]
    1) Apple will not issue a dividend. Most of Apple's earnings are parked overseas. Issuing a dividend would require that to be brought to the US, incurring a tax, and the dividend will incur a tax.

    2) Plenty of quality companies with high stock prices. Google and Berkshire come to mind. And as you said, it create no additional value.

    3) Pay attention to what management said in the most recent earnings call. Most of Apple's explosive growth came from China and Asia. Apple wants to get the iPhone in to as many people's hands as possible, and right now the only way that happens is through the carriers. Buying a carrier like Sprint will only make Apple a competitor to all the other carriers currently selling the iPhone. Dumb idea.

    4) L3 provides bandwidth over land. Apple is a mobile device company - iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Macbooks. They need wireless spectrum, not old fashioned land access. Dumb idea.

    5) Most interesting and best idea of the bunch. But given Apple's cash hoard of $80 billion by now, and its cash flows, why not start their own bank, instead of buying up an existing one? Who knows what toxic assets AMEX has hiding under its skirt? Apple already has the account info on 200+ million iDevice users around the world, and all its legacy iPod user, not to mention Mac computer users. Granted there is some overlap, but these are high-value accounts. Skip Amex, Visa, Mastercard, and start up you own payment processing system. Push out to all iDevices and laptops with an App that takes advantage of the bluetooth radio that is already built in, an App that is seamless, easy to use, and "magical," back up all those transactions with the $80 billion in cash to comply with bank regulations around the world, and Apple essentially becomes the worlds largest bank.

    Phone based transactions are already huge in third world companies, where a phone is the most important thing to own for the average person, after a home (and sometime, even before having a home).
    Jul 28 10:46 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 Moves That Could Drive Apple's Stock Price to $500 or Up 25% [View article]
    THanks for the good laugh.

    Reading and Google and innovation, without the word not in between the other two words just made me laugh.
    Jul 28 10:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Needs to Loosen Its Purse Strings: Here's What It Can Buy [View article]
    Author conveniently forgets (neglects?) the fact that most of Apple's retained earnings are parked overseas. Issuing a dividend would incur taxes to Apple for having to bring those earnings to the U.S. and then another tax on the investors who receive the dividend.

    Same for a stock buyback, Apple still will have to pay taxes.

    Best option for Apple, which it is currently pursuing, is to use the cash to purchase manufacturing capacity or make strategic acquisitions.

    If Apple listened to the self-styled analysts, it would have licensed its crown jewel OS X to the PC makers who would be churning out commodity, shitty hardware.
    Jul 26 12:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Needs to Loosen Its Purse Strings: Here's What It Can Buy [View article]
    Netflix, Pandora, Sirius are in the content distribution business. The only thing of value they hold are the contracts with the content creators.

    Apple is in the content distribution business. It can negotiate similar deals with the content creators as well.

    Disney is in the content creation business. Apple is not in the content creation business. The minute Apple acquires Disney, all the other content creators around the world immediately become Apple's competitors. Content owners are already scared of Apple and the power it wields in the entertainment distribution. Buying Disney will further alienate them.

    Besides, Apple would not know the first thing about content creation. Look at what happened to the once-great Sony when it acquired the music and movie studios. The content creators started calling the shots on the media devices, and started hobbling them with various restrictions that only served to make these devices more cumbersome to use by the consumers. There is a reason why the iPod killed off the Sony Walkman, and Sony's followup, the ATRAC player was a flop. The content division at Sony was meddling with the devices division.

    Same thing will happen at Apple if it buys Disney.

    Right now, as a AAPL shareholder, my biggest worry is all the Apple cash sitting in US treasuries and its valuation if the dunces in Washington cannot get to a debt agreement.
    Jul 26 11:24 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Is Still Dirt Cheap [View article]
    No one is clamoring for Google to split. I wonder why.
    Jul 22 04:33 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is It Time for Apple to Stop Suing Competitors? [View article]
    "Apple is no longer interested in licensing its IP with other companies."

    Well, given what Microsoft did when Apple licensed them GUI elements on the desktop last time around, who can blame them.

    But the above-quoted comment includes an interesting assumption that is not necessarily true in all cases, particularly for Apple. Intellectual Property does not automatically *have* to be licensed. To assume that Apple must license its technology, other wise it is playing unfair is a completely wrong assumption. It is no different than call s made by many so-called analysts who think Apple would be better off licensing its OS-X desktop operating system.

    Apple enjoys the lion's share of personal computing industry profits, and it enjoys the lion's share of cell-phone industry profits. And for tablets, they pretty much own the market and I wouldn't be surprise if their profit share in the tablet market approaches 90%.

    So why exactly should Apple license its OS-X operating system, or its patents? To gain market share?

    I simply cannot understand why analysts such as yourself and all their other pundits on Wall Street repeatedly call for Apple to license its crown jewels in the interest of greater market share. If you as an analysts are making investment recommendations to your clients or readers, shouldn't your priorities be to look at a company's profit share, and whether that is sustainable? Why do you analysts always insist on following the Walmart model of being being huge company with razor thin profit margins.

    I swear, sometimes I am not sure whether you analysts are deliberately obtuse to get attention, or you really as stupid and clueless as the content of your articles.
    Jul 15 11:11 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Android Tablets Are No iPad Killers [View article]
    You need a laptop
    Jul 8 12:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Needs to Pay a Big Special Dividend or Buy Back Stock [View article]
    Apple (management) does not have three options with respect to its cash ile. There are actually four options.

    The fourth option is to lock up component supply, and lock up manufacturing capacity. And this is where Apple is (wisely) employing its capital. Three most recent examples - flash storage, 10" LCDs for tablets, capacitive touch screens. On the manufacturing side, Apple entered in to some agreement with Toshiba to help on LCD manufacture, and is working with Foxconn to open up a new plant in Brazil, not to mention today's rumors of partnership with TSMC for future A6 chip production on 28nm tech. Imagine Apple locking up supply of high-performance low power processors for 6 months before the competition can get their hands on them to put in competing products.

    These initiatives cost billions of dollars, and Apple has strategically deployed its war chest to corner the lion's share of supply in these respective markets. This one big reason why competition has not been able to undercut on the price in the tablet market. Apple in the computer space has always been accused (falsely, in my opinion) of being pricier than computers sold by the competition.

    Everyone expected the iPad to come in at "under $1000" price point, which everyone assumed (wrongly) meant it would be $999. Competitors pre-announced (non-shipping) tablets before the iPad was officially unveiled, and priced them in the $600 to $700 range. Then Apple dropped the bomb and announced a $499 price on the base model. Competition had to go back to the drawing board. It was the billions in cash that allowed Apple to prepay and lock up huge supply of tablet components, months, if not a year or more, in advance. The cash pile allowed Apple to take a huge risk when analysts scoffed at the idea that Apple would even sell a million in the first year of sales. And Apple could have failed, but that huge cash pile allowed Apple to take a risk, and if it had failed, would not have placed the whole company in jeopardy.

    The only reason Wall Street keep repeatedly bleating that Apple should return money to shareholders is because doing so would put Apple at the mercy of Wall Street. With no cash on hand, Apple would be forced to go to the commercial lending market, or sell more shares - which means going through Wall Street. Which means opening up its kimono to the bean counters, delay and a relatively longer process before a deal can be closed.

    In contrast, with $65 billion in the bank, Apple can simply plunk down $4 billion to Toshiba for future LCDs, $5 billion to Samsung for flash, spend a few billion to help finance that Foxconn factory in Brazil, and with cash, things can move very quickly for them.

    Analysts and investors alike need to think different when it comes to Apple. They do not operate like a typical multinational.
    Jun 27 03:15 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple Should Buy Nintendo [View article]
    Nintendo is a content company.
    Apple is a devices company.

    Yes, Nintendo makes devices in the 3DS, Wii and (soon) WiiU
    And yes, Apple makes content in the form of their software (OS and apps)

    But they both make money in different ways. For Nintendo, devices are a means to an end. Nintendo can sell devices on thin margins in order to sell Zelda, Mario, etc. For Apple, software is sold at low margins in order to sell high margin devices.

    Combining these two companies will give you what we have today in Sony: the content division (Sony music and movies) fighting with the devices division to determine how and what should be sold (read: restrictive DRM, ease of use sacrificed to protect IP). Sony was a great devices company - they created the Walkman, and followed it up with the CD Walkman. Then they bought a movie and music studio, and we got the Sony ATRAC player.

    Neither Apple nor Nintendo are merging with the other. And the day such a merger is announced, I am selling all my holdings in AAPL.
    Jun 21 03:31 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 10 Reasons to Like Apple at These Levels [View article]
    What risk did the employees take?

    The employees developed and built the freakin' iWidgets that allows Apple Inc to enjoy moster growth in earnings and revenue.

    They could have left their jobs at Apple and joined Microsoft or HP or Dell and make just another PC. Instead they worked hard on a project that had no guarantee it would be the amazing success it is today, and executed brilliantly.

    1.6% stock compensation is a pittance
    Jun 15 04:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Zaky: Apple's P/E Ratio Falls to Lowest Level Since Financial Crisis Despite 92% Earnings Growth [View article]
    Umm ... yeah. You get a thumbs down from me for that. Take a Advil and chill with the tin foil conspriacy.

    Congress holding a hearing is just grandstanding. That's about the only thing they are good at, besides spending money (taxpayer's or borrowed).
    May 13 12:42 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple at the Crossroads: What's Next? [View article]
    Apple's moat is not the iProduct as you seem to think, but rather OS-X and iTunes. Dual moats, if you will. The OS can run on every major microprocessor architecture - the PowerPC, X86 and ARM, and can run from every device - from the iPod Touch, to laptops, desktops and servers, to the smartphone. iTunes brings with it the whole value chain - 100+ million credit card accounts, consumer purchase preferences, ease of use and tight integration with all OS devices mentioned above.

    Competition keeps trying, but none have been able to achieve, and more importantly better, what Apple has. Couple that with one of the best supply chain and manufacturing operations out there, and you will then begin to see the real moat Apple has established and no enjoys.
    Jan 26 03:57 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
42 Comments
151 Likes