|Bid||218.45 x 800|
|Ask||218.52 x 1400|
|Day's range||217.03 - 220.79|
|52-week range||142.00 - 233.47|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||1.08|
|PE ratio (TTM)||18.57|
|Earnings date||30 Oct 2019 - 4 Nov 2019|
|Forward dividend & yield||3.08 (1.38%)|
|1y target est||224.82|
Last year, Apple (AAPL) was the first publicly listed company to be valued at a trillion dollars. The tech giant has been an innovator since its inception.
Apple Arcade (AAPL) is a subscription gaming service that was unveiled at Apple’s annual event last week. The service will launch on September 19.
Google has agreed to make a one-time settlement of over $945 million euros to the French ministry. The ministry accused Google of evading taxes.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Vinyl records, paper books, glossy magazines – all should be long dead, but they’re refusing to go away and even showing some surprising growth. It’s probably safe to assume that people will always consume content in some kind of physical shell – not just because we instinctively attach more value to physical goods than to digital ones, but because there’ll always be demand for independence from the huge corporations that push digital content on us.According to the Recording Industry Association of America, vinyl album sales grew 12.9% in dollar terms to $224 million and 6% in unit terms to 8.6 million in the first half of 2019, compared with the first six months of 2018. Compact disc sales held steady, and if the current dynamic holds, old-fashioned records will overtake CDs soon, offsetting the decline in other physical music sales. Streaming revenue grew faster for obvious reasons: It’s cheaper and more convenient. But people are clearly not about to give up a technology that hasn’t changed much since the 1960s.In 2018, hardcover book sales in the U.S. increased by 6.9%, paperback sales went up 1.1% and eBook sales dropped 3.6%. The number of print magazine titles published in the U.S. rose to 7,218 from 7,176, according to the Association of Magazine Media. That’s more magazines than the U.S. had in 2009. For all the havoc the digital revolution is wreaking on newsrooms, people are still starting new titles – and 96% of the magazine industry’s subscription revenue still came from the print editions, with digital providing the rest.One explanation could be that, as Ozgun Atasoy from the University of Basel and Carey Morewedge from Boston University wrote in a paper based on a series of experiments, people are more willing to buy physical goods than equivalent digital ones, and they’re likely to pay a higher price for them. Offered an easy choice, people would rather have a vinyl LP than its digital image in the cloud somewhere; it’s just that the choice isn’t there most of the time. Atasoy and Morewedge wrote that the effect is mostly explained by “psychological ownership”: It’s hard for people to feel they own something they can’t physically touch.They wrote, however, that other, unidentified factors were also at play, since psychological ownership didn’t fully explain the difference in people’s willingness to pay for the two kinds of products. I think Michael Palm from University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill put a finger on those factors in a paper published earlier this year. He suggested that physical vs. digital, or new vs. old, could be a less relevant differentiation point than corporate culture vs. independent culture.The record industry got rid of vinyl fabrication when CDs appeared. Big store chains stopped selling LPs. But small producers and record stores that also function as community centers have kept the culture and the format alive. Now, the big companies see a commercial potential again – but they’re ordering vinyl records from independent producers, who can’t always keep up with the orders, and distributing to small stores, not just to giant chains like Best Buy, which are also stocking vinyl records again.“To combat the corporate incursion into vinyl markets, some independent labels are vertically integrating and beginning to manufacture as well as distribute and sell their own records,” Palm wrote. “The stakes of vinyl’s future involve the viability of an independent supply chain for popular music, and these stakes are raised in a media landscape dominated by online access to content controlled by corporate gatekeepers.”A similar logic applies to books. According to the American Booksellers’ Association, independent bookstores’ sales went up about 5% in 2018. These stores are where people hang out, discuss their discoveries, receive recommendations and advice. They are also where the products of small publishing houses can get more attention than they do in major bookstores or on Amazon.The increase in the number of print magazines also isn’t occurring thanks to major launches by big industrial publishers. There’s space in this industry for niche publications that want intimate contact with readers, not a tiny share of the attention squandered on the internet. The Association of Magazine Media claims the average time to read an issue of a magazine published in the U.S. is almost 50 minutes. A magazine is the same kind of alternative to Instagram or Twitter as a vinyl record is to Spotify or Apple Music.This may be the last line of defense for old content formats – a line they could be able to hold forever: The preserve for independent creation, manufacturing and distribution in a world that belongs to giant corporations that mass-produce content and mass-distribute it through the cloud. The old-new dichotomy may well turn out to be misleading; there's nothing “old” about trying to go beyond the mass market.To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Tobin Harshaw at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion's Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Apple Inc struck out at a Goldman Sachs Group Inc analyst on Friday in a relatively rare public dust-up between a blue chip Wall Street firm and its client. The disagreement came after Goldman Sachs analyst Rod Hall criticized Apple's accounting methods for the tech giant's new TV+ product, saying in a research note that it may result in lower gross margins and profits. A Goldman spokeswoman declined to comment or to make the analyst available for interview.
(Bloomberg) -- Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger resigned from Apple Inc.’s board, a sign of increased competition between the entertainment and technology giants.Apple said in a Friday regulatory filing that Iger quit on Tuesday. He had served as a director since 2011 and was a friend of Steve Jobs. The Apple co-founder was also a Disney board member until he died in 2011. The duo appeared on stage more than a decade ago to announce an iTunes partnership.The relationship between the two companies became more fraught after Apple expanded into original TV shows and movies, making the Cupertino, California-based company a potent new rival for Disney. That had put Iger’s role on Apple’s board in doubt.On Tuesday -- the same day Iger resigned from the board -- Apple CEO Tim Cook said the company’s TV+ service would launch Nov. 1 for $4.99 a month, undercutting the upcoming Disney+ offering. The announcement dented Disney shares.In an April interview with Bloomberg TV, Iger said he was careful to recuse himself at Apple board meetings whenever the topic of streaming video came up. He added that the topic “has not been discussed all that much” by the Apple directors, because it was relatively small and nascent. “So far it’s been OK,” he said. “I’m in constant discussion about it.”“It has been an extraordinary privilege to have served on the Apple board for eight years, and I have the utmost respect for Tim Cook, his team at Apple and for my fellow board members,” Iger said in an emailed statement.His departure leaves Apple with seven board members. The average board has 10.8 directors, according to a 2018 analysis of companies in the S&P 500 index by Spencer Stuart, a consulting firm that provides executive search and board-related services.\--With assistance from Christopher Palmeri.To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alistair Barr, Mark MilianFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Iger departed Apple's board the same day the company revealed new details about Apple TV+, a $4.99-per-month service that will launch on Nov. 1. Apple is spending billions in Hollywood to secure original programming for the service. The monthly subscription price for Apple TV+ undercuts Disney, which earlier this year announced its own streaming service that will feature its iconic children's content and cost $6.99 per month.
Apple (AAPL) announced an upgrade to its Watch series with the Apple Watch 5. Here's why Apple should keep leaning into the health ecosystem to stay on top.
(Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs is growing concerned about Apple Inc., and it is not alone.While shares of the iPhone maker have been stronger of late, the advance comes in contrast to a darker view toward the stock from analysts. Goldman is merely the latest example of growing caution as it cut its price target to one of the lowest on the Street.The consensus rating for Apple -- a proxy for its ratio of buy, hold and sell ratings -- stands at 3.76 out of 5. According to Bloomberg data, that matches the lowest since the first half of 2004.Shares of Apple fell as much as 2.7% on Friday, though it last traded down 1.9%. The stock has risen more than 13% off an August low and is less than 6% below its record close. While it slipped back under the threshold with Friday’s decline, its valuation returned above $1 trillion for this first in 2019 this week.Goldman analyst Rod Hall cut his target to $165 from $187, warning of a “material negative impact” to the company’s earnings per share as a result of a plan to offer a trial period for its Apple TV+ service.Apple responded to Goldman’s report in an email: “We do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results.”Goldman’s new target is 26% below Apple’s Thursday close, and while Hall has a neutral rating on the stock, there are only a couple of firms with a target below Goldman’s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The average target is about $219, matching the current share price.In addition to Goldman, recent cautious calls have included New Street Research cutting its own price target earlier this week and warning of a “multi-year decline” in iPhone demand.On Friday, Rosenblatt said it was seeing “weak” pre-orders for the latest version of the iPhone. The research firm has a Street-low price target of $150 on Apple stock, and it downgraded the shares in July. That brought the number of sell ratings to five, the highest number since at least 1997, according to historical data compiled by Bloomberg.All five of the sell ratings have come this year. In January, the number of firms with buy ratings dropped below 50% for the first time since 2004.(Adds Apple comment in sixth paragraph and Rosenblatt iPhone warning in eighth paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Ryan Vlastelica in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Catherine Larkin at firstname.lastname@example.org, Steven Fromm, Tatiana DarieFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
"We do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results," Apple told Reuters. Goldman Sachs had earlier cut its price target on Apple saying its plans to account for the Apple TV+ trial would likely hurt its average selling prices, gross profits and earnings per share.
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. said a new video service won’t have a material impact on its financial results, seeking to counter research from a Goldman Sachs analyst who cut his share price target on concern that aggressive pricing of the TV+ offering will trim profit.Earlier this week, Apple outlined a strategy that involved lower prices on several devices and services, including a monthly cost of $4.99 for TV+. It will also be free for one year with purchases of new Apple devices. This is relatively rare for a company that has historically charged premium prices to support healthy profit margins.Rod Hall, the Goldman Sachs analyst who covers Apple, cut his price target on Apple shares to $165 from $187, saying the company’s plan to offer a trial period for TV+ was “likely to have a material negative impact” on average selling prices and earnings per share.“We do not expect the introduction of Apple TV+, including the accounting treatment for the service, to have a material impact on our financial results,” Apple said in an email.The stock jumped after the statement, trimming losses from earlier in the day. It traded down 1.8% at $219 at 2:56 p.m. in New York.The TV+ service is entering a crowded video-streaming field that already includes Netflix Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Hulu and AT&T Inc.’s HBO. In November, Walt Disney Co. plans to launch a Disney+ streaming service, with a giant catalog of titles, for $6.99 a month. Netflix’s entry-level subscription is $8.99 a month in the U.S.Apple, which doesn’t currently have a back catalog of content for TV+, announced the $4.99-a-month pricing on Tuesday, sparking a rally in its shares and declines in Netflix and Disney stock. In India, the TV+ service will be 99 rupees ($1.40) a month. (Updates with background on TV+ in final paragraphs.)To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at email@example.com;Nico Grant in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at email@example.com, Alistair BarrFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Wall Street was mixed on Friday, with the S&P 500 and the Dow hovering just below all-time highs as cautious optimism regarding easing U.S.-China trade tensions was held in check by a drop in Apple stock. Tariff-vulnerable industrials helped keep the blue chip Dow in positive territory, which was on track for its eighth straight daily advance, its longest winning streak since May 2018.
A gauge of global stocks was on track for an eighth straight day of gains and benchmark government bond yields advanced on Friday after signs of progress in U.S.-China trade talks, as well as a solid U.S. retail sales report, allayed recession worries. Financials were among the best performers, aided by the rise in bond yields. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he was potentially open to an interim trade deal with China, although he stressed an "easy" agreement would not be possible.
Lawmakers asked Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple for a broad range of documents, another step in Congress's anti-trust investigation of the big tech companies.
The S&P 500 ended the day down slightly on Friday but less than 1% below its all-time high as a drop in Apple stock countered cooling U.S.-China trade tensions. Tariff-vulnerable industrials helped keep the blue-chip Dow in positive territory, which has now gained in eight straight sessions, its longest winning streak since May 2018. All three major U.S. stock indexes posted their third straight weekly gains, capping a week that saw signs of a potential thaw in the trade war between the world's two largest economies, which has gripped markets for months.
This month, there has been a de-escalation in the US-China trade war. President Trump delayed the next round of tariffs on Chinese goods by two weeks.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Careful, AT&T, those Hollywood lights can be blinding. The industry newbie has just struck an eye-popping deal with sought-after director J.J. Abrams to bring more of his movie magic to the telephone-giant-turned-media-conglomerate. AT&T Inc.’s offer amounted to: Dear J.J., please take this wheelbarrow of money. The deal between AT&T’s new WarnerMedia division and the Bad Robot production company, led by husband-and-wife team Abrams and Katie McGrath, is reported to be worth more than $250 million. That’s after Apple Inc. bid $500 million, according to Hollywood Reporter, though Abrams was said to have turned down that offer in part because he wanted to maintain a large box-office presence. With WarnerMedia, Abrams can create content for both the big screen and online-streaming properties. Bad Robot has previously produced hits such as “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” and the shows “Lost” and “Alias.” The outrageous sums that AT&T and reportedly Apple put forth are emblematic of the escalating arms race for content. Entertainment giants – those new to the business, in particular – are trying to secure hit TV series and films for new streaming-video services launching in the coming weeks and months to compete with Netflix. Apple TV+ is set to be released Nov. 1, followed by Disney+ on Nov. 12 and AT&T/WarnerMedia’s HBO Max next spring. (Last year, AT&T acquired WarnerMedia, formerly called Time Warner, the parent of Warner Bros., HBO, CNN, TBS and other networks.) While most of these relatively low-priced subscriptions are years away from being able to turn a profit, the media giants are willing to bear the cost and pay up for the content to attract and keep customers.But WarnerMedia also threw in an unusual perk for Abrams: He gets to own potentially as much as a 50% stake in the projects he creates for the company, according to NBC News. The inclusion of a term like that, combined with the value of the contract, makes the deal look like a rookie move by WarnerMedia and the executive spearheading its streaming strategy, John Stankey, a three-decade veteran of AT&T’s phone business. Either that or desperation. Virtually no other media or tech giant would likely agree to give up those content rights. In fact, Walt Disney Co. is moving to cut back on the profits it shares with showrunners and stars after hit series pass the crucial 100-episode mark and enter into lucrative syndication deals, according to the Los Angeles Times. Disney wants control over that future licensing windfall, preferring to instead divide profits earlier on, when they aren’t quite as big.It’s no wonder that after Disney, Comcast Corp., Viacom Inc., Sony Corp. and Netflix Inc. were all said to have looked at Bad Robot, AT&T and its new media moguls landed the deal. Stankey, known for a brusque management style, has already had a rough start when it comes to gaining the respect of his new media employees and shaping the vision for WarnerMedia. It's part of the reason shareholder Elliott Management Corp. launched an activist campaign at AT&T this week, calling for more operational focus and a clearer strategy. AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson recently promoted Stankey to chief operating officer in addition to his role presiding over WarnerMedia specifically.Stankey and Stephenson aren’t the only industry outsiders starstruck by Hollywood and feeling the pressure to pay whatever’s necessary to expand streaming-app libraries and keep viewers from canceling subscriptions. Apple TV+ has reportedly dished out $300 million for the first two seasons of “The Morning Show,” an original series starring big names like Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon. Disney+ spent about $15 million on each episode of its “Star Wars” series, “The Mandalorian,” which adds up to the cost of a big-budget film. But AT&T’s leaders are showing their inexperience in the world of content and entertainment, driving away key internal personnel while so eagerly courting Abrams. The company’s post-deal turnover was punctuated by the high-profile exits of HBO’s Richard Plepler and Turner’s David Levy earlier this year.In reporting on the Abrams deal, Bloomberg News also uncovered an interesting detail about what actually happened to Kevin Tsujihara. He’s the former head of Warner Bros. who left in March amid a sex scandal involving an actress with whom he was having an affair and was accused of helping to land film roles. At first it seemed like Tsujihara was going to stay on despite the scandal, and in fact he had even just been promoted by Stephenson. However, Bloomberg reports that Abrams’s wife, McGrath, essentially gave AT&T an ultimatum, saying that’d it be hard for Bad Robot and WarnerMedia to work together if Tsujihara was there. It all makes sense now.As for the deal, Stankey had better hope Bad Robot makes good movies, because it seems none of his industry peers were willing to offer what he did. To contact the author of this story: Tara Lachapelle at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Beth Williams at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Tara Lachapelle is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the business of entertainment and telecommunications, as well as broader deals. She previously wrote an M&A column for Bloomberg News.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
In terms of pricing, Apple’s seventh-generation iPad is a reasonable proposition compared to its predecessor. Now let’s see how it fares against its peers.