TR Forums

So this happened today: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/ ... investors/

Intel might not even be the first company to go bankrupt in the onslaught of AMD's 7nminess!!

Apple just rode the highest on the mid to late 2010s tech bubble. It has been deflating since late November 2018. Cryptocurrencies were used as collateral which is why most of them tank so hard.

At some point Apple will finally manage to saturate the market and sales will hit a brick wall. No idea when that will be though.

NovusBogus wrote:

At some point Apple will finally manage to saturate the market and sales will hit a brick wall. No idea when that will be though.

That's.....what's happening right now (partially). It was exacerbated pretty badly (or good?) by the fact that Apple gave anyone who wanted one a battery replacement. "You mean my iPhone 7 will perform like new again if I get a new battery? Sign me up, Sir Ive!"

They're really gonna have to work on their services if they want to keep revenue up. I'd legit pay 5 bucks a month to have iMessage on my Android devices. Also, maybe if they made Apple Music better i'd CONSIDER it, but as far as streaming music goes Spotify rules the roost. iCloud isn't exactly great either, especially when you compare it to Google's offerings.

Yeah, I was gonna say pretty much the same thing. "Good enough" smartphones are a commodity now, with a lot of competition in the mid-range. Apple is moving up-market in an attempt to maintain their margins, but this will inevitably mean a loss of market share as measured by unit sales.

Krogoth wrote:

Cryptocurrencies were used as collateral which is why most of them tank so hard.

WHAT?

Glorious wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

Cryptocurrencies were used as collateral which is why most of them tank so hard.

WHAT?

lol thank god someone said something i was VERY confused

The second sentence, while not wrong (read: utterly absurd and completely non sequitor) like the last sentence, is also seriously weird:

Krogoth wrote:

It has been deflating since late November 2018.

I'll take "That's slightly over a month ago", Trebek.

---

EDIT: To be explicit: dating what's basically the 30d to the precise month and year, while not inaccurate, is linguistically implying that you are talking about something much further back in time.

So why would you do that?

Mental confusion?

Misdirection?

And that last sentence....?

I mean, I'm -shouting- "WHAT?"

Because

!!!WHAT?!?!!?

Glorious wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

Cryptocurrencies were used as collateral which is why most of them tank so hard.

WHAT?

When the tech bubble started to deflate. People who had assets lock-up in cryptocurrenies (mainly the whales) sold it off to recoup their losses in the stock market. That's partly why prices for major Cryptocurrencies started to plummet right around the same time as tech bubble deflation.

Krogoth wrote:

When the tech bubble started to deflate. People who had assets lock-up in cryptocurrenies (mainly the whales) sold it off to recoup their losses in the stock market. That's partly why prices for major Cryptocurrencies started to plummet right around the same tech bubble started to deflate.

This is completely wrong. Anyone can verify it for themselves in minutes.

Seconds.

Just google Apple stock price, and click "Max" in the -GOOGLE- provided response (That is, this is even "closer" than my usual "I feel lucky" metric for demonstrating reality to those continually averse). You don't even have to google the bitcoin ATH (or ethereum etc...) I'll tell you from the top of my head: It was december 2017 for BTC (~19.5k) and Jan 2018 for ETH (~1.5k)

Apple's stock price was the highest it has ever been just 3 months ago.

In fact, since your strangely stated "Late November 2018", Bitcoin has actually only dipped like a few percentage points. It's been bouncing around between like 3.2k and 3.8k for the past month. Ethereum is actually up -strongly- since "Late November 2018". It actually dipped into double digits in mid-December and is now back to around 140.

----

Why do you keep doing this? If you are live-action roleplaying your explanations, can you please state that before you start?

Anyone else getting the feeling that Krogoth has his own Alice and Bob-like cast of characters behind their own make-believe version of The Fall of Cryptocurrency?

Edit: Ninja'd by Glorious, so yeah... I guess so.

Redocbew wrote:

Anyone else getting the feeling that Krogoth has his own Alice and Bob-like cast of characters behind their own make-believe version of The Fall of Cryptocurrency?

Or really anything, actually.

Forget Cryptocurrency, the stock market was the highest in Jan-Feb 2018 and Sep 2018. That's general, DOW/S&P, but pick any "tech" stock index, like NASDAQs, for instance. Ok, now it's March and September.

This is complete make-believe, across the board.

Adding in crypto-currency just makes it like... surreal.

Krogoth wrote:

People who had assets lock-up in cryptocurrenies (mainly the whales) sold it off to recoup their losses in the stock market. That's partly why prices for major Cryptocurrencies started to plummet right around the same time as tech bubble deflation.

By the way, what you just said is not related to what you originally claimed.

People selling assets in one class to recoup loses in another, different, class of assets, is simply not what the word "collateral" means.

Not only is your explanation here wrong, it's not even an explanation of what you previously asserted.

I'm also curiously to just what "assets locked up in cyptocurrencies" could even mean, especially in a context in which you assert they were freely sold to "recoup" losses in the stock market.

First off, the asset -is- the cryptocurrency, is it not? Other than USD, or some other "fiat" currency, whatever else could the "asset locked up in cryptocurrencies" even be? Do people have interests in land locked up in BTC? Pork Bellies? Beanie Babies?

Second off, in what sense was it "locked up?" These assets even have "Currency" in the title, right? Generally (well, just about universally, actually) "assets" implies less liquidity than "currency", but here you are actually claiming the reverse.

Third off, in what sense is anything re-couped by this operation, especially as you say this trend "plummeted" the price of cryptos? I mean, if my balance sheet for stocks is down, how do I "recoup" that by selling, even at hard-pegged, no-friction etc.., par value, another asset? I'll explain how this makes no sense: If I own a stock worth 2 dollars that is now worth 1 dollars, yes, I have "lost" one dollar (even if I haven't realized it via conversion). However, if I have a tulip bulb worth 1 dollar that I successfully sell for exactly one dollar (i.e. zero transactional cost) to "recoup" that lose, I DIDN'T ACTUALLY RECOUP ANYTHING.

A) Stock at $2 + Bulb at $1 = $3
B) Stock at $1 + Bulb at $1 = $2
C) Stock at $1 + One US Dollar at $1 (because I sold bulb @ $1) = $2

B and C are the same. You are worth 2 dollars either way.

Of course, since the bulb market is manipulated bubblicious insanity, sure, the price probably would plummet.

I mean, that's actually what you said happened in this case, no?

----

Again, what is the point of this sort of nonsense?

What's it even got to do with Apple missing revenues because (*gasp*) they've hit saturation with the iPhone and higher prices are not going to equal more sales. The iPhone is about to go the way of the Mac and the iPad. Hope Apple knows whatever it's going to do next.

disclaimer: I had a little Apple stock that I bought right the 7-to-1 split in 2014 when it was around $90. I sold it during its run-up to the September iPhone launch because I couldn't see how higher prices were going to be good in the long term, and so far I look pretty smart. So I'm not exactly biased here, but I did a little better than double up after brokerage fees.

You need to relax man. Just say I'm incorrect and provide the evidence be done with it. There's no need to write-up a multi-post essay over it.

He did and then you said more nonsense.

derFunkenstein wrote:

He did and then you said more nonsense.

I was ninjed before that response. >_< Enough of this silly prattle and back to the topic on hand.

Krogoth wrote:

I was ninjed before that response. >_<

Sure.

Krogoth wrote:

Enough of this silly prattle and back to the topic on hand.

Wait, you *weren't* personally "manning the RDF generator" with that whole series of posts?

My mistake.

"Lower than anticipated iPhone revenue..............................................for the vast majority of the year-over-year iPhone revenue decline, in some developed markets, iPhone upgrades also were not as strong as we thought they would be........."

duh pricing

I've worked overseas, iphone 8 is like 1 month gross salary for a lot of people

make an SE2 with same specs as an 8, with a price $100 less than the original SE, they probably wouldn't keep up with demand.

but meh

oh and apple, I'm still using my iphone4 because of that.

toodles

The prices are sky high, but comparably the improvements in each generation become smaller and smaller. If you look at the specs between 7,8,X there are only very small differences, certainly not enough to justify yearly upgrades. Non-replaceable battery is one of the only things that forces people to upgrade what are otherwise still very usable phones (and also one of the key reasons I refuse to purchase an Apple phone). Business wise the non-replaceable battery is pretty smart but it's surprising that the market lets them get away with it.

blitzy wrote:

Business wise the non-replaceable battery is pretty smart but it's surprising that the market lets them get away with it.

Nobody outside of tech-heads cares.

The S4 I finally just had to replace because the "phone" part of the phone wasn't even really working anymore had a user-replaceable battery that I don't think I ever replaced.

Can't be totally positive, but let's say I didn't.

Not having the ability to do something I never actually did isn't just a total wash on that basis--having a non-replaceable battery makes it easier to seal the phone for immersion purposes.

So there's an advantage to not having the ability to do something I didn't actually do.

I'm not really a gadget guy (you know, with the Galaxy S4 I had for like 5 years and some change), but I can't really deny that I'm a "tech-head".

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

blitzy wrote:

Business wise the non-replaceable battery is pretty smart but it's surprising that the market lets them get away with it.

Nobody outside of tech-heads cares.

...that, and in particular, the way a lot of people treat their phones, it's essentially disposable tech after 2-3 years for reasons other than the battery.

chuckula wrote:

7nminess!!

Seven nanometersiness; Try saying that seven times quickly....

Glorious wrote:

Not having the ability to do something I never actually did isn't just a total wash on that basis--having a non-replaceable battery makes it easier to seal the phone for immersion purposes.

While I'm not exactly delighted that my Xperia does not have a modular battery, I do rather like the fact that it's waterproof and that I can and do clean dirt off of it by running it under the faucet. So it's a (har har) wash, really.

Chrispy_ wrote:

chuckula wrote:

7nminess!!

Seven nanometersiness; Try saying that seven times quickly....

It's a even meatier seven-nanonmeter meteor.