Apple's stock drops. Why?

Apple has not had a good morning.

Apple has not had a good morning. Its stock has dropped 40 per cent and is now trading at a valuation which is lower than Dell.

Why is this? Well, several reasons are knocking around. Firstly, there's that Tim Cook just isn't Steve Jobs - he is not a "product visionary".  Perhaps this is why Apple's internal management is also in flux. And another problem is the products themselves. The iPhone is on its way down, and the word is there's not much that's new in the pipeline.

Here's the BBC:

While the sales of its popular iPhone and iPad have grown - they have fallen short of market expectations - and its market share has been declining.

At the same time, its biggest rival Samsung has been steadily increasing its market share, both in the smartphone and tablet PC sectors.

According to research by Gartner, in the final quarter of 2012 Samsung sold 64.5 million smartphones to Apple's 43.5 million.

However, Business Insider makes a convincing case for the defence:

  • The stock is cheap.

  • We are nearing the end of the new-product blackout that began last fall. (In relatively short order, excitement should begin to build about the iPhone 5S, the new iPad Mini, and other product refreshes, even if Apple doesn't have anything truly new up its sleeves.)

  • While Apple's management team without Steve Jobs in charge is unproven, it's not stupid. Almost all of the folks who produced and sold Apple's great products over the past five years are still on the team.

  • Apple appears to be working on a cheaper iPhone, which suggests it is finally willing to trade profit margin for growth. This is critical for the company's long-term survival, and it's something Apple should have done a couple of years ago, when it was still the industry leader. But better late than never.
  • A disastrous first quarter and second-quarter outlook should radically reduce Wall Street's expectations for Apple — thus setting the bar lower. This will make it easier for Apple to positively surprise investors in the future.
  • It is still possible that Apple is working on a revolutionary new product like a TV or smartwatch that will suddenly get people jazzed about the company again. Yes, as time goes by, this possibility seems more remote. But it's not zero. Most importantly, Apple is still well-positioned strategically, and it still makes excellent products. We are not talking about a company like Dell or HP, which are in businesses that are dying (PCs). And we're not talking about a company whose products have gone to crap. We're just talking about a company that has lost its product edge and clung too long to its super-premium pricing strategy instead of using its phenomenal profit margin and financial resources to remain both the quality leader AND the price leader. The global smartphone and tablet industries are going to continue grow rapidly over the next several years. Assuming Apple makes smart decisions on the pricing side, Apple should grow with them.
Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era