Seeking Alpha

dajhilton

dajhilton
Send Message
View dajhilton's Comments BY TICKER:
  • Is Apple's Run Over? [View article]
    Absolutely right. The merchants alternative will never see the light of day. Some 'retaliation', as this author claims. Bet Apple's quaking in their boots. You don't fight a credit card with a debit card (which is all that the merchant's exchange payment system is). The average American has around $15,000 debt on their credit card. They're hardly going to stampede to a payment system that only works if they've got money in the bank.
    Nov 7, 2014. 07:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Breaking The Law (Of Large Numbers) And Getting Away With It [View article]
    True there are other stocks that have outperformed Apple, but that's not the criterion. It's performing essentially without risk. It is the ability that Apple provides to invest in a high-performing company that is uniquely placed to weather whatever obstacles the future presents (not least due to its continually growing cash hoard). In short, Apple presents little if any risk. Yes, there will be dips, but it is not going to go bankrupt, or come anywhere close. And for so long as it is generating these kinds of profits, there is simply no comparably attractive share investment.
    Nov 3, 2014. 12:51 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Breaking The Law (Of Large Numbers) And Getting Away With It [View article]
    Yes, Apple's growth may be much smaller in years ahead. But when you are making a billion dollars a week in profit, do you really need growth? Those profits have to go somewhere, and many will find their way back to shareholders.
    Nov 3, 2014. 09:58 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Breaking The Law (Of Large Numbers) And Getting Away With It [View article]
    Your excellent article also illustrates why many Apple investors have failed to experience the growth and income they might otherwise have: because they have believed a corollary law, the "pervasive but fallacious belief" that diversification of investment assets is always preferable to a single bet on one company, ie, Apple. For so long as Apple is clearly an outlier, in a positive sense, in all of the ways that are outlined in this article, it is simply foolish to hold shares in anything else. Following the 'law' of diversification has, in these times, cost investors far more than it has likely saved them.
    Nov 3, 2014. 08:33 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Is Weak, That Is Not Normal [View article]
    And if it did happen, it happened yesterday (and before). Not today.
    Sep 3, 2014. 12:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Set For Strong Sales Of iPhone 6 In Just A Few Weeks - But Is It Too Little, Too Late? [View article]
    "Apple investors will cheer the results if they pan out. . . . I won't be among them."
    Talk about the non-news story of the year!
    Aug 28, 2014. 08:33 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Apple's E-Book Payout Is A Catalyst For Investors [View article]
    Agreed. I will be amazed if Apple doesn't win its appeal in this case.
    Jul 17, 2014. 05:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: The Party Is Over; Initiating With A Bearish View [View article]
    Android is an ecosystem? Don't think the author knows what the word means.
    Jul 10, 2014. 10:28 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: The Party Is Over; Initiating With A Bearish View [View article]
    Indeed. His price target is higher than the stock has ever traded. I'd call that amazingly bullish.
    Jul 10, 2014. 10:26 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Something Extraordinary Is Certain [View article]
    Then why this afternoon's big sell off? We're days ahead of the news.
    May 30, 2014. 01:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Something Extraordinary Is Certain [View article]
    "The future of Apple's stock price will be determined this announcement." No, the future of Apple's stock price will be far more significantly determined by June's stock split.
    May 30, 2014. 01:12 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Apple's Media Ambitions Will Kill Off Sirius And Pandora [View article]
    True, and Apple, you will notice, always stays clear of government-regulated industries. I don't see it wanting to turn any part of its future over to the Federal Communications Commission, as it would have to if it became a media company. And that is why, unlike Pandora, Apple has chosen not to avail itself of the very cheap government license to stream all the music available in the US: why should it submit itself of the government-imposed restrictions on programming and operations that go with being a government-licensed webcaster like Pandora, when it can stay free and unregulated in the open market? Yes, it pays, initially, a few million more for music rights, but that is really chump change for Apple. And, by pursuing this strategy, it raises the economic cost of music in the unregulated marketplace, which is the principal factor that the Copyright Court will look to the next time it reviews -- and no doubt raises -- the cost of streaming music for government regulated webcasters like Pandora.
    May 30, 2014. 07:44 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Apple's Media Ambitions Will Kill Off Sirius And Pandora [View article]
    And that court fight you refer to is just to adjust Pandora's bill for music PUBLISHING royalties owed to songwriters. That can typically run between 8 - 16% of revenues. The far, far higher bill for the rights to stream recordings usually costs a music service as much as 70% of revenues. And the Copyright Court's increase in that cost for Pandora still has to determined. Their business model is hopeless. It can't compete with a free market (ie, not government-regulated) music streaming service, such as Spotify or iBeats.
    May 30, 2014. 07:32 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Apple's Media Ambitions Will Kill Off Sirius And Pandora [View article]
    Apparently, you don't even understand Pandora's business model. Far from 'cracking digital music wide open', they offer one extremely limited government-regulated service -- non-interactive webcasting -- while Apple, Spotify and all the rest are operating in the open market for music -- free of the government-required programming restrictions that Pandora must comply with. Pandora can't possibly compete with a full-service music streaming service, especially one that pays top dollar for the music rights it obtains. Something, Pandora will never have the cash to do.
    May 30, 2014. 07:29 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Apple's Media Ambitions Will Kill Off Sirius And Pandora [View article]
    "What makes you think Apple can take Beats, which has a tiny market share, pay twice the royalties to the artists and share ad revenue, and wave their magic wand over the balance sheet and come up with a profit?"
    Your rhetorical question is easily answered. It's because the government-fixed cost of music that Pandora pays is scheduled to go up next year -- possibly doubling -- based on what? Based on what other companies (read Apple, Spotify, etc.) are paying to stream music in the same marketplace. Pandora simply can't compete in this arms race where every time Apple and Spotify pay more for music, it means that Pandora has to pay more too, and further increase their losses. Why? Companies like Pandora do not negotiate with record labels; Apple does. Pandora instead takes advantage of the government-subsidized 'compulsory licence' allowing them to stream all the music they want so long as (1) they pay the currently low discount tariff set by the Copyright Court (that's what the recording artists are all complaining about); and (2) they do not offer any song selection or inter-active features allowing listeners to find the music they want. It is a HOPELESS business model. In the end, Pandora will wind up being forced by the government to pay just as much for music as everyone else, while being legally constrained from giving customers the music service and features they deserve.

    Compulsory license regimes always fail (look what's happening to ASCAP and BMI this year as they are alienating and losing their major music publisher clients who will soon be directly licensing their music to . . wait for it . . Apple. Cutting out another huge industry based on government regulated compulsory licenses. Apple is here, as elsewhere, the ultimate disruptive force in an established industry. And Pandora investors doesn't seem to understand that.
    May 30, 2014. 07:27 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
More on AAPL by dajhilton
COMMENTS STATS
205 Comments
220 Likes