|Bid||199.23 x 900|
|Ask||199.25 x 900|
|Day's range||198.03 - 200.60|
|52-week range||142.00 - 233.47|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||1.03|
|PE ratio (TTM)||16.75|
|Earnings date||29 Jul 2019 - 2 Aug 2019|
|Forward dividend & yield||3.08 (1.56%)|
|1y target est||210.89|
Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer sits down with Kevin Love, NBA superstar and mental health advocate.
On June 20, US tech giant Apple (AAPL) saw its stock open on a bullish note. It posted a high of $200.61, up 1.4% from its previous session’s closing price. Earlier today, a sharp rally in large US companies, including Oracle (ORCL) and Apple, helped the S&P 500 Index (SPY) reach record highs.
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. on Thursday recalled some MacBook Pro laptops sold between September 2015 and February 2017 due to a "battery that may overheat and pose a safety risk."The Cupertino, California-based technology giant said in a statement that it is asking customers to stop using the computers. The problem affects the 15-inch version of the older MacBook Pro. The company said it will replace the batteries in these models at no charge."Apple has determined that, in a limited number of older generation 15-inch MacBook Pro units, the battery may overheat and pose a fire safety risk," the company wrote.The recall notice marks the second from the company this year. In April, Apple recalled some wall plug adapters for international use that could create a risk of electrical shock. Over the past several years, Apple also announced less critical replacement programs, such as for batteries and storage drives in the 13-inch MacBook Pro.However, this battery recall marks the second significant issue with Apple laptops this year. Last month, after years of complaints from consumers, the company confirmed that some of its newer laptops have problems with the keyboard and offered a free service program to impacted customers.To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at email@example.com, Alistair Barr, Andrew PollackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Apple announced on Thursday that it will recall some 15-inch MacBook Pro laptops because they have batteries that may "overheat and pose a fire safety risk."
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. urged the Trump administration not to proceed with tariffs of as much as 25% on a new slate of products imported from China, saying it would reduce the company’s contribution to the U.S. economy.The Cupertino, California-based technology giant made the plea in a letter to U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer this week. Tariffs will affect nearly all major Apple products, including iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, Apple Watches, AirPods, and the iMac, the company wrote. It would also hurt lower volume products like the HomePod speaker, some Beats headphones, wireless routers, the Apple TV box, cases, and iPhone replacement parts.“We urge you not to proceed with these tariffs,” Apple said.This is the first time Apple has specifically mentioned the iPhone on a list of products that would be impacted by tariffs. The smartphone generates about two-thirds of Apple sales and drives the purchase of other devices and services.Apple is one of the largest job creators in the U.S., it said, responsible for more than 2 million positions. The company also said it is the biggest U.S. corporate taxpayer. Apple has pledged to make a direct contribution to the U.S. economy of more than $350 billion over five years, and said it’s on track to meet that goal.The U.S. and China said their presidents will meet in Japan next week to relaunch trade talks after a month-long stalemate.Apple spent decades building one of the largest supply chains in the world. The company designs and sells most of its products in the U.S., but imports them from China after assembly. That makes it one of the most exposed companies to tariffs. The company may be evaluating moving some production out of China to elsewhere in Asia, according to a recent Nikkei report.Apple’s global supply chain has helped it efficiently pump out hundreds of millions of devices, making the company one of the most-profitable in the world. But the approach relies on cheap labor and the relatively free movement of goods between nations. The trade war between the U.S. and China is a threat to this lucrative status quo."What has benefited Apple in the past may turn full circle and harm their super-normal margins in the future," Neil Campling, head of TMT research at Mirabaud Securities Ltd., wrote in a note to investors on Thursday. "While Apple attempts to portray itself as pivoting to a services company the bare fact remains that more than 60% of profit is generated by the iPhone."In the past, when it has been up against local taxes on the sale of products built elsewhere, Apple has re-located production within that country. Apple is now building iPhones in India to avoid a local tax in the region, while it conducted similar measures several years ago in Brazil for selling iPhones.However, moving production out of China is not without risk. The company’s suppliers employ millions of people in China and its relationship with the government there is partly based on this contribution to the economy. Moving out of China could threaten some of these jobs, hurting the relationship with the government and raising potential roadblocks to sales of iPhones and services like Apple Music and iCloud in the country.Last year, Apple told Lighthizer that tariffs could affect AirPods, some Macs and the Apple Watch. The company was granted a reprieve when the government said it would leave the Apple Watch from being impacted.In its letter this week to the U.S. government, Apple said that the tariffs would weigh on its global competitiveness. It also stressed its impact on the U.S. economy. "The Chinese producers we compete with in global markets do not have a significant presence in the U.S. market, and so would not be impacted by U.S. tariffs," Apple said.Apple’s letter was filed during the public comment period for proposed tariffs on about $300 billion in Chinese goods as the U.S. tries to finalize a deal with China that addresses the trade deficit, allegations of intellectual property theft and other trade practices.Hundreds of U.S. companies and trade groups are appearing at a seven-day public hearing through June 25, mostly to oppose the duties as a tax on businesses and consumers. The duties could be imposed after a rebuttal period ends July 2.\--With assistance from Molly Schuetz.To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org;Mark Niquette in Columbus at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at firstname.lastname@example.org, Alistair Barr, Andrew PollackFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The US-China trade war has already given a scare to Apple’s (AAPL) investors vis-à-vis the possibility of a 25% tariff on Apple goods being imported from its Chinese facilities. As a result, Apple might be considering shifting its plants out of China.
Apple Inc said proposed U.S. tariffs on goods from China, including iPhones, iPads, and Macs, will reduce the company's contributions to the U.S. economy and hurt its global competitiveness. The U.S. government should not move ahead with a proposal to impose tariffs of up to 25% on another $300 billion worth of goods from China, the tech company said in comments posted on a government website on Thursday. Apple is among the latest U.S. firms to press the Trump administration to abandon its plan for more tariffs.
Apple Inc, Keurig Dr Pepper Inc and Dollar Tree Inc have joined other companies in their opposition to a Trump administration plan for more U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, including iPhones, Macs, and single-serve coffee brewers. The United States and China are resuming talks to end a trade war after more than a month's hiatus. U.S. President Donald Trump had said he would consider extending tariffs to another $300 billion (£236 billion) of Chinese goods if his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping does not yield progress on the trade dispute.
Apple said in a letter released Thursday that tariffs could hurt its ability to compete globally.
Apple is considering moving some production from China as it prepares to release its new iPhone line this fall, The Wall Street Journal reported.
On June 19, the Fed concluded its two-day meeting and provided a press release. As widely expected, the Fed kept the policy changes unchanged. The Fed indicated that it's open to interest rate cuts.
Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. are most at risk if government regulators are serious about pursuing antitrust actions against Big Tech.
The S&P; 500 hit its highest intraday level ever, above 2,956 in early trading. It was up 0.8% to 2.953.40 as of 9:45 AM ET (13:45 GMT).
Square stock is down roughly 3.5% over the last three months as investors decide what's next for the once high-flying financial tech giant.
(Bloomberg) -- Of the five biggest tech companies in the U.S., Microsoft is the only one that isn't currently in the crosshairs of U.S. antitrust authorities. The software giant already took its turn through the regulatory wringer starting two decades ago, a years-long confrontation that resulted in the finding that the Redmond, Washington-based company had illegally maintained its monopoly for personal-computer operating-system software. The case dealt with the company's moves to kneecap the Netscape web browser by bundling its own product, Internet Explorer, into Windows, the dominant PC operating system.A federal judge ordered the company split in two in 2000, a fate Microsoft avoided when an appeals court reversed that part of the ruling and the company eventually settled. That 2002 settlement led to nine years of court supervision of the company's business practices and required Microsoft to give the top 20 computer makers identical contract terms for licensing Windows, and gave computer makers greater freedom to promote non-Microsoft products like browsers and media-playing software. Because observers and legal pundits almost uniformly agree the software giant did virtually everything wrong in the course of the investigation -- which had its start as early as 1990, followed by a 1998 Justice Department lawsuit -- in retrospect its story serves as a useful instruction manual of what not to do.While no formal inquiries have yet been opened, the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department carved up the territory of big tech -- Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Facebook Inc. -- as they prepare to dig in on antitrust issues. The Department of Justice will look at Google, which dominates the online search and advertising spaces, and Apple, whose pervasive App Store is likely to be under examination. The FTC drew Facebook, with its behemoth social networking and messaging apps and a slew of recent privacy missteps, and e-commerce giant Amazon, which has been pushing into areas like grocery and health. As these companies build their legal teams and prepare strategies for the fight ahead, here are several lessons that Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook can learn from Microsoft's battle with the feds.Don't deny the obvious. Or don't even put up a fight about whether you have a monopoly. Microsoft, whose Windows software accounted for about 90% of the market for PC operating systems, opted to argue that the space was actually competitive. Parts of the argument included videos where Microsoft employees offered a straight-faced marketing pitch for the benefits of rival Linux programs with a tiny share of the market. The impulse is understandable -- monopoly sounds like a dirty word. But U.S. antitrust law doesn't expressly forbid having a monopoly; it outlaws doing certain things to establish, maintain or extend one. That led some legal scholars to argue that Microsoft would have been better served by copping to the Windows monopoly and establishing a legal beachhead against the idea that it did anything illegal to gain it or keep it. Arguing against something so self-evident via the company's very first witness strained credibility and started the case off on a bad footing.It's easy to imagine a similar issue applying to Google, which has more than 84% of the web-search market and controls 82% of mobile-phone operating systems. In the app-store business, Google and iPhone maker Apple together control more than 95% of all U.S. mobile app spending by consumers, according to Sensor Tower data. Apple CEO Tim Cook earlier this month told CBS that his company doesn’t have a dominant position in any market. But regulators may look at the power it wields through its app store. It could be more effective for these companies not to start by denying that leadership position -- if you have 80% or 90% percent of a market, arguing that you don't really dominate isn't the hill you want your legal reasoning to die on. Don’t resort to spin. Microsoft's credibility with the press was no higher, hurt by constant counterfactual statements and spin. Each day, after a bruising in court as government lawyer David Boies poked holes in executive testimony and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson alternated between chuckling at the witnesses and chastising them, Microsoft deployed a hapless PR person to the steps of the courthouse to recite the words, "Today was another good day for Microsoft." It never was. Assume everything will be made public.Among the list of horrifying moments for Microsoft in court was the public showing of parts of the 20 hours of depositions of co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Bill Gates. The tapes (yes, they were tapes -- this was the 90s) showed an ill-lit, evasive and combative Gates engaging in Clintonian word-wrangling, such as asking about the definition of the word "definition" and arguing what "market share" meant. Microsoft claimed it had been assured the tapes would never be shown in court, or the company would have taken greater care with Gates’s appearance and manner. During their playback in court, the judge laughed at several points -- not the impression the software giant wanted to make on either Jackson or the public. Jackson told New Yorker reporter Ken Auletta that Gates came off as "arrogant" in the depositions.Just as bad for Microsoft, an array of internal emails were read aloud in court that contradicted the testimony of its executives, which further angered Jackson. The takeaway? Assume everything will be aired in the court of public opinion. If it was true 20 years ago, it’s even more apparent in the current era of oversharing, thanks to the tech companies’ own services. Don't be condescending about the technology. Most lawyers, judges and regulators don't appreciate being told or having it implied that they lack the ability to apprehend certain tech concepts. Or that the reason they think there's been an antitrust violation is because they just don't "get" the technology. It was true that Jackson and Boies seldom used a computer at the time. But it didn't require a computer science doctorate to divine the legal merits of the case. At the height of Microsoft's hubris (or carelessness, or both), the company sent Windows chief Jim Allchin to the stand with a doctored video that purported to show how computing performance would be degraded when the browser was removed from Windows on a single PC. It was actually done on several different computers and was an illustration of what might happen rather than a factual test, as the company initially claimed -- a fact that came to light only after several days of the government picking through every inconsistency in the video. Microsoft remade the simulation several times in an effort to save the testimony. The company seemed to think it could get away with baldy stating a technological claim and mocking up something that backed it up, perhaps reasoning that no one would know the difference, but it miscalculated badly (Joe Nocera, now a Bloomberg columnist but then writing for Fortune, recounts the whole cringeworthy story).Choose your lawyers wisely.Microsoft took on the U.S. government led by a combative Gates and an equally aggressive general counsel, Bill Neukom. Gates, the son of an attorney, was outraged, frustrated and convinced the company was being unfairly targeted. One of the company’s outside lawyers, from the firm Sullivan & Cromwell, said the company could put a ham sandwich into Windows if it wanted to. And throughout, Neukom not only failed to tamp down his executives’ worst impulses, he seemed to amp them up. His legal style led observers to point out that his last name -- pronounced `nuke 'em’ -- was quite fitting.The U.S. government’s latest antitrust targets should take heed: If your top executive's style tends towards waving a red flag in front of a bull, you may be wise to consider a top lawyer with a more conciliatory style. Google’s top executives have already raised the ire of lawmakers for refusing to appear before Congress, and no one has ever accused Jeff Bezos of being afraid of a fight. At Facebook, where Zuckerberg regards Gates as a mentor and observers see similarities in their styles and temperaments, this lesson might be particularly important.There are many different ways to lose.Right now, the companies are only at risk of an inquiry -- the agencies are deciding what, if any, action to take. But even at this stage, they should keep in mind that a loss doesn’t only mean a full-scale breakup or forced divestiture. Companies can avoid that extreme fate and still find, as Microsoft did, that the years of distraction from the fight have hampered their business and sucked up executive time and mental energy.In an interview last year at the Code Conference, Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith lamented the distraction the case caused, and cited it as a reason the company missed out on the search market -- the business that fueled the runaway success of Google, now under the microscope itself. Others have pinned Microsoft’s abysmal performance in mobile computing partially on constraints and distractions from the case. Some of the company’s business missteps can fairly be attributed to poor execution and strategic errors that had nothing to do with the government dispute. Still, the notion that merely fighting an antitrust battle may do almost as much harm as losing one brings us to our last point.Consider settling early. It's hard to say with certainty what the late 1990s and early 2000s might have looked like for Microsoft had it found a way to settle with the government earlier than 2002. Still, for the government’s current targets, it's worth weighing a settlement against the impact of several years of investigation, a possible loss in court and potentially harsher restrictions or remedies. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google probably have a pretty good idea of what regulators may object to, and it’s worthwhile for them to consider ways to assuage those concerns while keeping the core of their businesses and future ambitions intact. The alternative is years of investigations, possibly damaging evidence and testimony, and ample distraction, all leading up to what could be a devastating loss in court. (Updates with earlier comments from Tim Cook. A previous version of this story corrected the attribution of an anecdote about a ham sandwich.)To contact the author of this story: Dina Bass in Seattle at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Jillian Ward at firstname.lastname@example.org, Mark MilianFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.