O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Apple. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Apple. Mostrar todas as postagens

domingo, 28 de setembro de 2014

IPhone addicted people (como eu): attention to the fine print


$199 Apple iPhone 6 Is Fiction, if Not Fantasy

MINH UONG / THE NEW YORK TIMES
Strategies
By JEFF SOMMER
What does it cost to buy a basic new iPhone 6? If you think the answer is $199, and you’re happy believing that, you may want to stop reading now.
If, like me, you watched Apple’s self-referential love fest for the new iPhone and suddenly wanted one very badly, you may have been encouraged by the way the price was listed: “From $199.”
Apple could have been more transparent and said that the typical base price was $649 or more. But that would have spoiled the fun.
It turns out that upgrading an iPhone every two years on a 24-month phone service contract, as I’ve been doing, doesn’t cost $199. This year it will cost me at least $649. In fact, it could cost considerably more than that if you add the miscellaneous charges that your phone carrier may impose, and the discounts that it may withhold.
Keeping your costs under control may take some work:  I discovered that a relatively new option — buying a phone on the installment plan from AT&T, my current carrier — turns out to be much cheaper for me than getting the phone through a service contract, the way I’d done it before. I didn’t know that until I crunched the numbers. 
“I think it’s fair to say that people wouldn’t be as motivated to go out and buy if they thought it was a $650 purchase,” said Craig Moffett, senior analyst and a partner at MoffettNathanson Research. “And if you look at the marketing issues and the accounting issues, it’s fair to conclude that the companies have a strong incentive to obfuscate about pricing.”
The information you need to figure out the real price exists on the Apple website and on the sites of the various major phone carriers. But often it’s not easy to find the numbers or to calculate them. The first time I tried, on AT&T, I had to click through several steps of the online ordering process before I stumbled on the dismaying truth. (T-Mobile, which calls itself “America’s Un-carrier,” is commendably clearer.)
Mr. Moffett has been studying phone pricing for years, and he gave me a quick primer. The confusing pricing has major implications for phone company investors who may not understand that the newer purchase options enable the companies to claim higher revenue over the short term than they could with the older plans. That accounting change, he said, is masking a decline in phone company revenue. “There are a lot of unsophisticated consumers and investors who don’t understand all of this,” he said.
Here’s how it works.
Every two years, whenever there’s a full iPhone upgrade, as there is right now, there is typically a surge in people ordering new phones: Apple reportedthat people placed 10 million iPhone orders last weekend. But this year, there are more choices, and I found them confusing.
Mr. Moffett explained why: “This is the first iPhone cycle when what’s known in the industry as E.I.P. — or equipment installation plan — is really popular among the big carriers. They’re giving a lot of discounts. And you may be able to get a better deal that way right now, if you’re willing to look for one. Unfortunately, many Americans are allergic to math. And you may have to do the numbers yourself to find out which plan is better for you.”
I started buying an iPhone 6 on AT&T’s website the way I always have, with a standard two-year service contract. But this time, I was surprised to discover that if I continued down that road, AT&T would penalize me in two ways.
This part may be tedious if you’re not at least a little nerdy, but please bear with me:
First, AT&T said it would charge me a $40 “upgrade fee.” And then, as I went further, a warning popped up. It said that while I could pay $199, I would no longer be “eligible for the Mobile Share Value monthly discounts” of $15 or $25 a month. In my case, it’s $25 a month. That’s because I use a lot of data: I’m part of a family-sharing plan that gives us 10 gigabytes of data a month.
If I got a phone for $199, plus $40 for an upgrade fee, I’d “lose” — that is, have to pay — $25 a month for my service plan for two years, or $600. Add all of that up, and it comes to $839. If you use less data, you’d presumably “lose” $15 a month for two years, or $360. Using the same calculations, you’d end up paying $599.
And there’s more. Because even the smaller and cheaper of the two main versions of the iPhone 6 dwarfs the iPhone 5 that I carry in my pocket, the protective case I’ve got now won’t fit on a new phone. And I won’t risk dropping such a precious gadget without a case. With a corporate discount, the cheapest replacement case I was able to find on the AT&T store goes for $16. Ouch. Tack that onto the final price.
That’s for a basic iPhone 6. Apple, you’ll recall, says the phone costs “from $199.” Hmm.
I found an excellent article on ZDNet by Ed Bott, who did this sort of calculation for a variety of plans and carriers. He concluded this way: “You know what? You can’t get an iPhone 6 for $199. And anyone who tries to tell you otherwise needs to go back to smartphone school.” I went back to smartphone school, with the help of Mr. Moffett.
I found that if I bought the iPhone from AT&T and qualified as a good credit risk, I would receive a 0 percent loan for the full cost of the phone and could pay it off over 24 months at $27.05 a month, which comes to a little more than $649. Let’s round that off at $650. There’s no $40 upgrade fee. And there’s no $199 down payment. (I would have to pay sales tax on the $649 cost of the phone.) For me, I concluded, it would be cheaper to buy the phone from AT&T on the installment plan. If I used less data, it would be cheaper to buy the phone from AT&T through a service contract. And, of course, there are different deals on different carriers.
Once I started down this road, it made me pause. Do I really need to replace my phone every two years if it’s going to cost $650?
As Farhad Manjoo has explained in these pages, many people don’t need to buy new phones that often. In my case, if I keep my old phone a bit longer, I’ll save $25 every month, and that adds up.
The installment plans are popular now, but they could hurt Apple and the phone companies, because they may wean many of us off the two-year upgrade cycle, Mr. Moffett said. “The E.I.P. plans are clearly better for one category of person — someone who will keep a phone for more than two years. They’re much cheaper.” And more of us might join that category, if we understand the numbers.
But through the magic of corporate accounting, the plans help make the carriers’ revenues look more appetizing. If you buy a $650 phone on the installment plan from a phone company, it counts as $650 in immediate earnings for that company even though the money actually comes in over two years. As these plans have become more popular, they’ve had a significant effect on the industry. Thanks to installment plans, annualized revenue in the second quarter for the entire American phone industry appeared to rise by 3.7 percent, Mr. Moffett calculated. When you exclude them, the industry would be declining in revenue for the same period by 2.1 percent, annualized.
For investors, that means the cellphone business may not be as attractive as it looks at first glance. And for consumers, it means that you’ve got to pay very close attention to the fine print when you get a phone. It’s actually cheaper — in some cases but not all — to buy a phone rather than get a subsidized phone on a two-year contract. It’s all in the details. Once you start examining the cost of a new iPhone, it may not look quite so irresistible.

RELATED COVERAGE

  1. Bits Blog: Apple Responds to Complaints of Bent iPhonesSEP 25, 2014
  2. Bits Blog: Apple Pulls iOS 8 Software Update After iPhone Problems SEP 24, 2014

domingo, 26 de maio de 2013

E a Apple inventou o iTax... - Editorial New York Times


The New York Times


May 25, 2013

‘A’ Is for Avoidance

Even before last week’s Senate hearing on Apple, it was clear that the aggressive use of tax havens and other tax avoidance tactics had become standard operating procedure for global American companies.
Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard were the focus of a similar Senate hearing last September, while Google, Amazon and Starbucks have drawn recent scrutiny in Europe. And, of course, there is General Electric, which achieved a perfect zero on its United States tax bill in 2010. In fact, G.E. was reputed to have the world’s best tax avoidance department until Apple came along with tactics to stash some $100 billion in Ireland without paying taxes on much of it anywhere in the world and, apparently, without breaking any law.
And that is the problem. Rampant corporate tax avoidance may not be illegal, but that doesn’t make it right or fair.
As corporate tax revenue has withered as a share of the economy and as a share of total revenue, Washington has leaned more heavily on individuals to pay for government. In 2012, personal income taxes and payroll taxes raised $1.9 trillion, compared with $242 billion raised from corporate taxes, a disparity that contributes to widening inequality and, in turn, to a slow economy and less social mobility. Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that fully taxing the profits sheltered abroad by American corporations would raise an additional $42 billion in revenue this year, enough to end more than half the spending cuts in the sequester.
Yet it is not clear that lawmakers are committed to stopping widespread tax avoidance. Instead, they may further entrench the system, or even make it worse. The most immediate issue involves a tax repatriation holiday. Under the law, American corporations can defer paying tax on their profits as long as the money is held abroad. Apple is one of nearly two dozen major corporations pushing for a tax holiday, which would permit corporations to bring their foreign-held profits to the United States over the course of a year at a discounted tax rate.
A tax holiday in 2005 dropped the rate from 35 percent to 5.25 percent, enticing corporations to repatriate some $300 billion. It was billed as a way to create jobs and boost investment, but it was a total policy failure. The repatriated money was mostly used for dividend payments, share buybacks (which tend to raise executive pay) and severance pay for employees laid off in corporate restructuring. The holiday rewarded aggressive tax avoidance, with 77 percent of the repatriated profits coming from tax haven countries, according to the Government Accountability Office.
Worse, that tax holiday encouraged American companies to come up with even more ways to shift profits abroad in anticipation of a second tax holiday. Since the last holiday ended, profits held in foreign countries have skyrocketed, according to expert testimony at the tax avoidance hearings in the Senate last year. American corporations now have an estimated $2 trillion stashed abroad.
Some American corporations are also lobbying for a new “territorial” tax system, which would, in effect, be a permanent holiday: profits made or shifted abroad would be forever untaxed in America, even if the country where the profits were held was a haven with no or low taxes. That would further encourage the shift of jobs, investment and profit abroad — exactly the wrong policy direction.
Equally pernicious is the notion, shared by members of both political parties, that corporate tax reform should be “revenue neutral” — meaning that it should simplify the code but not raise any taxes. That is absurd. It would leave the nation chronically short of revenue and increasingly reliant on working people to shoulder the tax burden.
Global corporations present difficult issues for which there are no easy answers, but it is clear what we should not do. And there are steps that can be taken in the short run to curb abusive tax avoidance. Corporations should be barred from deducting expenses against foreign-held profits on which taxes are deferred, as is currently allowed. Congress also needs to end a practice known as “check the box,” which allows companies to easily create the requisite corporate structures to shift profits offshore. Tax rules and enforcement must be tightened to ensure that profits attributable to patents, design, marketing and other intangibles developed in the United States are indeed taxed in the United States. A more permanent fix would end tax deferral of foreign-held profits, imposing American taxes on profits when they are made.
The revelations in the hearings on Apple and other companies have given Congress all the evidence it needs to justify new corporate taxes. But there are no signs yet that it has the courage to impose them.

terça-feira, 21 de maio de 2013

Apple: a companhia mais rentavel do mundo, e a mais subtributada - LeMonde


Le groupe informatique a promis de reverser 100 milliards de dollars à ses actionnaires d'ici à la fin septembre 2015, soit 55 milliards de plus qu'annoncé l'an dernier. REUTERS/MIKE SEGAR

Apple pointé pour ses détournements d'impôts

Le Monde.fr Sylvain Cypel (Correspondant à New York)
Très mauvaise nouvelle pour Tim Cook, le successeur de Steve Jobs à la tête d'Apple appelé à témoigner, mardi 21 mai, devant une commission parlementaire sur les aménagements fiscaux mis en place par sa société et surtout sa préférence à s'endetter pour investir plutôt que de 
rapatrier ses fonds détenus à l'étranger.
La séance promet d'être animée. Lundi, en soirée, une commission d'enquête du Sénat, dirigée par deux gros"calibres", le démocrate Carl Levin, qui s'est fait une spécialité de la chasse aux fraudes et des entorses à l'éthique des banques et des entreprises, et le républicain John McCain, ex-candidat du parti à l'élection présidentielle, ont dévoilé les grandes lignes d'un rapport d'enquête qu'ils ont dirigée. Leurs conclusions : Apple, qui détient à l'étranger 
essentiellement sur des comptes offshore 102 des 145 milliards de cash dont il dispose, a peu ou pas du tout payé d'impôts depuis des années sur ses bénéfices réalisés à l'étranger, ni aux Etats-Unis ni dans les pays concernés. La firme, accusent-ils, a massivement usé d'artifices procéduriers lui permettant de n'être fiscalement enregistrés nulle part. Principales victimes de cette attitude : l'Etat fédéral américain, mais aussi 20 Etats américains où Apple dispose de sites, à commencer évidemment par la Californie, où elle a son siège et des laboratoires de recherche.
"LE SAINT GRAAL : ÉVITER TOUT PAIEMENT"
Selon MM. Levin et McCain, depuis son introduction en bourse, en 1980, Apple aurait évité de verser des milliards de dollars d'impôts en jouant sur des failles juridiques offertes en premier lieu par la législation fiscale irlandaise, où son siège de Cork centralise la plupart de ses activités internationales : en Asie (Inde, Chine, etc.), en Afrique ou au Moyen-Orient. Pour être accueilli en Irlande, Apple avait d'ailleurs négocié avec le trésor local un taux d'imposition n'excédant pas 2 %. La commission d'enquête note qu'Apple Sales International (ASI), une filiale commerciale qui centralise en Irlande les ventes d'iPads, iPhones et d'autres produits, a déclaré en 2011 à sa maison-mère 22 milliards de dollars de bénéfices avant impôts, pour ne payer que... 10 millions d'impôts (moins de 0,5 %). Entre 2009 et 2011, ASI aurait ainsi pu "soustraire" au regard du fisc américain quelque 74 milliards de dollars de bénéfices avant impôts. bénéfices non imposés. Comment la chose a-t-elle été possible, s'interrogent les enquêteurs, alors que toutes les réunions de direction d'ASI sont tenues au siège californien d'Apple, et que mêmes ses comptes bancaires y sont domiciliés.
Autres filiales commerciales, Apple Operations International (AOI) et Apple Operations Europe n'ont reversé aucun impôt à aucun Etat sur les 5 dernières années (AOI a déclaré 30 milliards de dollars de bénéfices entre 2009 et 2012). Ces trois entités ont pu, chaque fois, arguer qu'elles n'étaient pas résidentes en Irlande, ni d'ailleurs autre part... AOI, a rappelé lundi soir le sénateur Levin, chapeaute les opérations offshore de la société."Cela 

ne lui suffisait pas de payer un taux d'impôt extrêmement bas. Elle voulait atteindre le Saint Graal : éviter tout paiement", a-t-il lancé. Dans son rapport, la commission s'interroge sur une situation où les brevets et plus généralement la propriété intellectuelle des produits Apple continuent d'être légalement entièrement enregistrée aux Etats-Unis, alors que leur exploitation ne donne lieu à aucun reversement d'impôts au bénéfice des contribuables américains.

RECOMMANDATIONS DE LA COMMISSION
En dehors d'Apple, de très nombreuses sociétés, américaines ou autres, ont aussi su bénéficier de règlements fiscaux irlandais avantageux et mis en place un écheveau inextricable de filiales qui, d'Irlande ou d'autres pays à fiscalité "intéressante", ont vu leurs bénéfices trouver massivement refuge dans des"boites aux lettres" aux iles Vierge ou aux Caïmans. Les deux sénateurs ne considèrent d'ailleurs pas que la firme de Cuppertino se soit placée dans 
l'illégalité. Mais ils estiment que la dimension de l'évasion fiscale atteint dans son cas un volume sans précédent, Apple ayant su jouer mieux encore que d'autres de lézardes juridiques pour "transférer ses actifs et ses bénéfices à l'étranger et minimiser ses obligations fiscales".
A l'évidence, la commission sénatoriale n'envisage pas de réformer de fond en comble le code des impôts des entreprises ; M. McCain a suggéré que ce serait politiquement très compliqué. Cependant,"quand vous constatez ce genre d'énormité dans le comportement, pourquoi attendre ?", a-t-il lancé. En ciblant l'emblématique Apple, la société la plus rentable du monde actuellement ses bénéfices pour l'exercice en cours pourraient dépasser 
les 45 milliards de dollars la commission entend créer un précédent et imposer à tous de nouvelles normes. Elle émet donc une série de "recommandations". Parmi celles-ci :"éliminer les incitations permettant aux multinationales américaines de transférer leur revenus issus de la propriété intellectuelle vers des coquilles vides" dans des paradis fiscaux ou assimilés (comme l'Irlande). Ou encore : " imposer l'actuel impôt sur le revenu à toute société enregistrée à l'étranger mais gérée et contrôlée aux Etats-Unis ".
APPLE SE DÉFEND
Dans une déclaration publiée lundi soir, la firme californienne assure qu'elle a toujours"mené ses affaires avec les plus hauts standards éthiques, en fonction des lois et des règles comptables existantes". Elle rappelle qu'elle verse 30,5 % de ses revenus au fisc aux EtatsUnis, soit pour l'année dernière la somme "extraordinaire" de 6 milliards de dollars. Réponse de M. McCain : "Apple est peut-être une des compagnies qui paye le plus d'impôts, mais aussi une de celles qui parvient le plus à ne pas en payer."La commission soupçonne d'ailleurs la firme d'avoir systématiquement surévalué en public les montants d'impôts réels versés aux Etats-Unis.
Plus important, Apple indique ce qui devrait constituer son axe de défense face aux élus : le régime fiscal américain"ne s'est pas adapté à l'avènement de l'ère numérique et à une économie mondiale en changement rapide". Son PDG est donc disposé à aider les pouvoirs publics à mieux se conformer à l'air du temps et à remettre à plat, après un "examen objectif", le code fiscal des entreprises. Des tractations seraient déjà engagées, de grandes entreprises acceptant de respecter une attitude plus "civique" à la condition que l'Etat américain diminue l'imposition des bénéfices réalisés à l'étranger.
Malheureux successeur du "héros" Steve Jobs, M. Cook n'a pas sa baraka. Le fondateur d'Apple, disparu en 2011 et qui avait mis en place ce système d'"évasion fiscale" licite à défaut d'être éthique, n'avait, de toute sa vie, jamais été convoqué devant une commission parlementaire.

quinta-feira, 14 de fevereiro de 2013

O seu iPhone vai perder o i no Brasil (gracas ao INPI)

INPI nega à Apple registro da marca ‘iphone’ no Brasil
Rodrigo Petry*

A batalha entre a Apple e a Gradiente pelo uso da marca “iphone” ganhou hoje um novo capítulo. O Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial (INPI) negou o registro por parte da Apple de quatro marcas de aparelhos no Brasil, todas relacionadas ao nome “iphone”.
A Apple também ingressou no INPI solicitando a caducidade do registro da marca pela Gradiente, sob o argumento de que a empresa brasileira não teria comercializado o produto, no período de cinco anos, a partir da concessão da marca em janeiro de 2008. Assim, a Gradiente vai ter que provar que vendeu aparelhos com a marca “iphone” nos últimos cinco anos, afirmou o INPI. A Gradiente e a Apple disseram que não vão comentar o assunto.
Disputa
A decisão publicada na Revista da Propriedade Industrial não proíbe a Apple de seguir a venda de seu aparelho de telefone no Brasil. “O INPI não tem esse poder, apenas o poder judiciário”, afirmou um porta-voz do instituto.
A Companhia Brasileira de Tecnologia Digital (CBTD), que arrenda a marca Gradiente, lançou em dezembro do ano passado um aparelho com a marca “iphone”, de sistema operacional Android. A escolha do nome “iphone”, segundo a empresa brasileira, é anterior à invenção do smartphone da Apple. A IGB, dona da Gradiente, fez em 2000 o pedido de registro da marca ao INPI, que o concedeu apenas em 2008. A Apple lançou seu primeiro iPhone em 2007.
No vídeo abaixo, a Gradiente conta a história do nome “iphone” e aponta, inclusive, as diferenças entre os aparelhos. O modelo da Apple, segundo o vídeo, tem maior velocidade e resolução de tela, enquanto o da Gradiente é mais simples, mas “tem um diferencial que os brasileiros adoram: aceita dois chips”. Veja:
*Colaboraram Mariana Congo e Nayara Fraga
-
VEJA TAMBÉM
-
LINK: Testamos o iphone da Gradiente

sábado, 9 de fevereiro de 2013

O iPhone e o Iphone: entenderam? Pode render alguns milhoes...

Could Apple lose its iPhone trademark in Brazil?

Finalcial Times, February 7, 2013

Who invented the airplane? Many argue it was actually Alberto Santos-Dumont, a pioneer aviator from the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais.
Now it is claimed that Brazil also invented the iPhone before the US.
Next Wednesday Brazilian copyright regulators may issue a ruling officially deny Apple the rights to sell phones under the iPhone brand in Brazil, according to a person close to the situation.
The reason? IGB Eletrônica, or Gradiente as the Brazilian company is known, requested exclusive rights to the name ‘Iphone’ back in 2000. (Whether it’s a capital ‘i’ or not doesn’t matter, apparently.)
Apple requested exclusive rights to the iPhone brand in Brazil for several categories of merchandise just before it launched the smartphone in 2007. And it will get some, but just not the one it needs: the right to sell phones under that brand.
After eight years of waiting, IGB was finally awarded those rights in 2008.
In practice, though, this is not as disastrous for Apple as it sounds – even if Tim Cook has said in the past that Brazil is the company’s next big target after China.
The ruling from Brazil’s National Institute of Intellectual Property does not force Apple to stop selling iPhones in Brazil. This would only happen if IGB files a lawsuit against Apple and a judge then rules in the Brazilian company’s favour, issuing a court order to ban sales.
Apple declined to comment. IGB would not comment on the decision but said it had not been contacted yet by Apple.
Once the decision is made public next week Apple will be able to file an appeal with the regulators themselves. If that fails, Apple can go to the courts to ask a judge to revoke the regulators’ decision.
Meanwhile, Apple may probably try to reach a settlement privately with IGB to resolve the situation – the most likely outcome. It will all come down to how much Apple is willing to pay.
Apple faced a very similar trademark dispute in China over its iPad, reaching a $60m settlement last year. And IGB told Bloomberg this week that it would consider selling the naming rights to US tech giant.
Although Apple could probably do without a Brazilian lawsuit right now, its top executives may not lose too much sleep over this just yet. After all, given that the iPhone still costs up to $1,000 in Brazil, many Brazilians just buy it in Miami anyway.

segunda-feira, 4 de fevereiro de 2013

Apple: delicias e tragedias da volatilidade nas bolsas

Quando as ações da Apple sairam do patamar de 300 dólares para mais de 400, eu já achava que havia uma bolha pronta para estourar...
Pois é: demorou. As ações foram a mais de 700 dólares e muita gente comprou na alta, achando que o paraíso estava próximo. Muita gente vai amargar prejuízos e perdas irrecuperáveis, pelos próximos anos, pois não acredito que chegue a 800 dólares any time soon.
Bem vindos ao mundo real...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Coping With the Pain of Souring Apple Shares

Some Investors See a Cheap Stock, but Others Have Sold Everything; 'Headache, Not a Cancer'

The Wll Street Journal, February 3, 2013

As the U.S. stock market flirts with record highs, investors who hold big stakes in Apple Inc. AAPL -0.41% are taking a beating.
Since peaking at $705.07 during the day on Sept. 21, Apple shares have fallen 36% to close at $453.62, erasing more than $236 billion in market value—a figure equal to about 35 times the current value of BlackBerry RIM.T +0.70% maker Research In Motion Ltd.
The pain has been widespread. About 60% of actively managed U.S. stock mutual funds that invest in big companies owned at least some Apple shares at the end of the year, according to investment-research firm Morningstar Inc. MORN +0.53% Ninety funds had 10% or more of their portfolios in the stock.
No one blinked when Apple shares headed towards $700 but now that the stock has dropped below $450-with some analysts saying it could be headed well below $400-people are complaining. 
But Apple's plunge is affecting investors in different ways. While some are getting out for good, others are staying put or even buying more. And some are glad they avoided the stock altogether.
Most mutual funds disclose their holdings quarterly, but the 145 actively managed U.S. stock funds that hold Apple and reported monthly results sold a net 223,402 shares, or 3% of their Apple holdings, in December, according to Morningstar, a time when the stock was between 16% and 28% off its peak. Sixty-one funds sold shares, while 45 funds bought.
That doesn't mean all of them took losses. Even with the setback, Apple has generated a total return, including dividends, of about 28% annually over the past five years, versus 4% for the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. In four of the past 10 years, Apple's stock price has more than doubled, and its only full-year loss over the past decade occurred in 2008.
Here are some examples of how professional money managers and small investors have reacted:
Bailing out. Some investors, feeling burned by the steep drop, are selling their stakes.
Frank Sansone, a retired college professor in Pensacola, Fla., bought 40 Apple shares during the first half of last year. As its stock price breached $700 in September, Mr. Sansone said he intended to sell but missed his chance while on vacation.
As Apple's stock dropped, he sold most of the shares in November and December, locking in losses of about $2,800.
"I left it alone, and it turned out to be a bigger mistake than I ever expected," he said.
Among mutual-fund managers, one of the biggest sellers was the $857 million Brandywine Fund, which last quarter dumped its entire Apple stake of more than 143,000 shares, according to Morningstar.
In a year-end note to investors, fund manager Bill D'Alonzo cited tightening profit margins, among other worries, as reasons for selling. A spokesman for Friess Associates, which manages the fund, declined to comment.
Staying the course. The $406 million Matthew 25 Fund landed in the top 2% of funds that invest in large, growth companies for each of the past three years, largely because of its huge stake in Apple. As of September, when the fund last disclosed its holdings, Apple comprised 15% of its portfolio.
That has come back to bite manager Mark Mulholland. The fund has had a total return of 4.5% this year through Thursday, 0.7 percentage point less than the S&P 500 and in the bottom 41% of its peers, according to Morningstar.
"It's been a headache, but not a cancer," Mr. Mulholland said, noting that since November he has fielded a handful of emails and phone calls from investors asking about his Apple stake.
Seeing a cheap stock. John Barr, portfolio manager of the $67 million Needham Aggressive Growth Fund, last quarter bought 100 shares, increasing his stake to 5,350 shares, even though the fund invests mostly in small-capitalization stocks. At the end of the year, Apple was Mr. Barr's fifth-largest holding, with 4.3% of the fund.
Mr. Barr said he still believes the stock is cheap and that the company might see hot earnings growth as it introduces new products, such as a rumored cheaper iPhone or television set.
Apple's price/earnings multiple based on expected earnings over the next 12 months is eight, compared with 13 for the S&P 500, according to Morningstar.
"It's an inexpensive stock that is growing much faster than the market as a whole," he said. "We're happy to own something at a reasonable price."
Needham Aggressive Growth, which first bought Apple shares in 2006, has never sold shares, Mr. Barr said.
Bob Turner, manager of the $223 million Turner Large Growth fund, said that his firm "would be more buyers than sellers" of Apple; it had about 13% of its portfolio in the stock at the end of 2012, according to Morningstar. Through Thursday, the fund has had a return of 3%, about 2.2 percentage points below that of the S&P 500, according to Morningstar.
Given how widely owned the stock is, Mr. Turner, whose fund first bought shares in 2004, said he thinks Apple simply ran out of investors looking to add shares at its peak in September.
"What's always befuddled me is valuation," he said, adding "You can be right with your thesis all day, but it doesn't stop you from losing money."
Sitting out. Apple's drop provides some vindication for the few money managers who didn't hold Apple during its bull run and saw their portfolios trail because of it.
Robert Zagunis, who co-manages the $4.3 billion Jensen Quality Growth fund, has never owned Apple shares. The fund invests only in companies with a decadelong history of high returns on equity, a test Apple doesn't meet yet.
In the last three years through Thursday, the fund has had an average annual return of 12%, 2.5 percentage points lower than the S&P 500, according to Morningstar.
Last summer, Mr. Zagunis devoted a note to investors explaining why he didn't hold Apple. "We had times when [much] of the underperformance was due to one stock that we didn't hold," he said in an interview.
But when Mr. Zagunis was recently a guest speaker at an investment class at a university, he said, the students showed him a chart of their portfolio, which has performed poorly this year.
"They said—it was almost apologetic—'We owned Apple.'"
Write to Joe Light at joe.light@wsj.com

sexta-feira, 16 de novembro de 2012

Companheiros: a luta continua...


Não, não se trata de nenhum apelo político militante; simplesmente da luta patentária entre dois gigantes das tecnologias de informação e de comunicação.
Depois da recente vitória da Apple contra a Samsung, a luta continua nos tribunais...

Court adds iPhone 5, Galaxy Note 10.1 and Galaxy S III to patent lawsuit
Kelly Hodgkins

Both Samsung and Apple may expand their patent infringement claims to include recently released devices, says a report in Computerworld. A California judge handed down an order that let Apple add the Jelly Bean OS and new Samsung products like the Note 10.1 and the Galaxy S III to an ongoing patent lawsuit between the two companies.
The same order also lets Samsung amend its infringement device list to include the iPhone 5 and possibly both the iPad mini and the iPad fourth generation. The order was handed down by Paul S. Grewal, Magistrate Judge of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Apple filed this lawsuit in February 2012 and is one of two cases that are making their way through the California court system. In the other case, a jury ruled in favor of Apple and awarded Apple a $1.05 billion judgment.

quinta-feira, 20 de setembro de 2012

iOS 6 + iPhone 5 - David Pogue

New iOS 6 Loses Google Maps, but Adds Other Features

The arrival of the iPhone 5 isn’t the only big news for phone fans this week. Wednesday, Apple is also making iOS 6 available to anyone with a recent iPhone (3GS, 4, or 4S), iPod Touch (fourth generation) or iPad (2 or 3). It comes installed on the iPhone 5 and the new fifth-generation iPod Touch.
(Caution: Not all features are available on the older models. I’ve noted the biggest such exceptions below, but you should check here for full details.)
Apple's Maps app for iOS 6. Apple’s Maps app for iOS 6.
FDDP
The Times’s technology columnist, David Pogue, keeps you on top of the industry in his free, weekly e-mail newsletter.
Sign up | See Sample
The challenge in creating a new operating system is always this: How do you add features without adding complexity?
On a tiny phone screen, that challenge becomes even more difficult. The answer, of course, is, you can’t — but few companies try harder to minimize the complexity than Apple. In iOS 6, for example, Apple counts more than 200 new features, but you wouldn’t know it with a quick glance.
Here’s the best of what’s new:
Maps. Apple, as you may have noticed, has been quietly dismantling its relationship with Google. In iOS 6, for example, there’s no longer a built-in YouTube app (Google owns YouTube); fortunately, YouTube offers a new app of its own.
And now Apple has replaced the iPhone’s longstanding Google Maps app. Apple says that Google had been steadily improving its Maps app — but only for Android phones, leaving the iPhone in the dust. For example, the iPhone app didn’t have spoken turn-by-turn directions. And on Android, the maps are composed of vector art—smooth lines generated by the computer — rather than the square tiles of pixels that you saw on the iPhone.
In any case, the new iOS Maps app offers those features — spoken navigation, vector maps — and more. You can just tell Siri where you want to go (“Give me directions to LaGuardia Airport”), and let the app start getting you there with one of the cleanest, least distracting navigation screens ever to appear on a GPS unit. The visual cues are big, bold and readable at a glance, and the spoken cues are timed perfectly so that you don’t miss a turn. You can even turn the screen off and let the voice alone guide you.
Real-time traffic and accident alerts are built in — no charge, courtesy of crowdsourced speed and position data from millions of other iPhone owners out driving.
Not all is rosy in Mapsland, though. Apple’s database of points of interest (stores, restaurants, and so on), powered by Yelp, is sparser than Google’s. There’s no built-in public-transportation guidance. For big cities, you get Flyover, a super-cool 3-D photographic model of the actual buildings — but losing Google’s Street View feature is a real shame.
During navigation guidance, you can’t rotate the map with your fingers or zoom in by more than a couple of degrees—to see your entire route, for example. Turns out you have to tap the screen and then tap Overview to access that more detailed, zoomable, rotatable map.
Flyover and the vector maps require a fast Internet connection, by the way. When you’re not in a 4G cellular area, it can take quite awhile for the blank canvas to fill in. (Navigation and Flyover don’t work on the iPhone 3GS or 4, the original iPad, or pre-2012 iPod Touches.)
Call smarts. These are some of my favorite new features. If you’re driving or in a meeting when a call comes in, you can flick upward on the screen to reveal two new buttons: Remind Me Later and Reply With Message. The first button offers choices like “In 1 hour” or “When I get home” (a message will remind you to call back); the second offers canned text messages, like “I’ll call you later” or a custom message, that let your caller know you can’t take the call now. Excellent.
Do Not Disturb is also incredibly useful. It’s like Airplane Mode — the phone won’t buzz, ring or light up — except that (a) it can turn itself on during certain hours, like your sleeping hours, and (b) it can allow certain people’s calls or texts through (people on your phone’s Favorites list, for example). You can sleep soundly, knowing that your boss or family can reach you in an emergency, but idiot telemarketers will go straight to voice mail.
(Similarly ingenious: The option called Repeated Calls. If someone calls you twice in three minutes — possibly someone who needs to reach you urgently — that call is allowed to ring during Do Not Disturb.)
Siri. Siri, the voice-activated servant, now understands questions about movies (“When is the next showtime of ‘Finding Nemo 3D?’” or “Who directed ‘Chinatown?’”), sports (“Who won the Yankees game yesterday?”) and restaurants (“Where’s the closest diner?”). In each case, Siri’s responses are visual and detailed—for restaurants, you can even make a reservation with one tap, courtesy of Open Table.
You can also speak Twitter or Facebook posts (“Tweet, ‘I just broke my shin on a poorly placed coffee table’”) and—hallelujah!—open apps by voice (“open Camera”). That’s a huge win.
Siri is also available in more languages and on more gadgets (the new iPod Touch; the iPad 3).
FaceTime over cellular. FaceTime is Apple’s video-chatting feature — and until today, it worked only in Wi-Fi hot spots. Now, at last, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5 and cellular iPad 3 owners can make video calls (to other iPhone, iPad, Touch and Mac owners) even when they’re out of Wi-Fi range, out in cellular land. When the signal is decent, the picture looks great. (AT&T doesn’t let you use FaceTime over cellular unless you have one of its complicated and expensive shared-data plans.)
Camera panoramas. You can now capture a 240-degree, ultra-wide-angle, 28-megapixel photo by swinging the phone around you in an arc. The phone creates the panorama in real time (you don’t have to line up the sections yourself). Available on iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, and iPod touch (5th generation), and very welcome.
Passbook. This app collects and consolidates barcodes: for airline boarding passes, movie tickets you bought online, electronic coupons and so on. The feature hasn’t gone live yet, so I couldn’t test it except with phony coupons and boarding passes supplied by Apple to reviewers. But the apps for Delta, American, Starbucks and Fandango will be Passbook-compatible almost immediately, and that should be a great time-saver—your boarding-pass barcode appears automatically when you arrive at the airport (thank you, GPS), even on the Lock screen.
Safari browser. You can now save a Web page to read later, when you don’t have an Internet connection, and in landscape mode, a full-screen browsing mode maximizes screen space by hiding toolbars. (I don’t think the third new Safari, feature, iCloud Tabs, will be as useful. It lets you open up whatever browser tabs you left open on your Mac or iPad—if, that is, they’re all signed into the same iCloud account.)
Shared photo streams. You can “publish” groups of photos to specified friends; they can view the pictures on their Apple gadgets or on a Web page. They can add comments or “like” them.
Mail. In Mail, you can indicate the most important people; they get their own folder in the Inbox, helping to lift them out of the clutter. And at long last, you can now attach photos to a Mail message you’re already writing, instead of having to start in the Photos app — better late than never, I guess.
Miscellaneous. The option to publish utterances, photos or other bits to Facebook pops up in a bunch of different apps. A new Privacy settings page gives you on/off switches for the kinds of data each app might request (access to your contacts, location and so on). Tweaks have been made to the App Store app, Reminders, Videos and other apps.
And you no longer have to enter your Apple password just to download an update to an app you already have. Hosannah.
In the end, iOS 6 is to software what the iPhone 5 is to hardware: a big collection of improvements, many of which are really clever and good, that don’t take us in any big new directions. Lots and lots of nips and tucks — that’s Apple’s motto lately.
Unlike the iPhone 5, however, upgrading to iOS 6 doesn’t cost anything. It’s free and available now. In general, you should go get it—and you sacrifice very little (a few Maps features) and gain a lot.

quinta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2012

Apple: muita gente vai perder dinheiro...

Durante toda a minha vida computacional -- que se estende desde a segunda metade dos anos 1980 -- nunca tive, e nunca comprei para mim nenhum outro computador que não fosse Apple; comprei todos os modelos, quase todos eles, ao longo desse período, mesmo pagando um pouco mais caro do que os modelos da linha MS-DOS e depois (R)Windows. Ou seja, eu sou um MacAddicted, e orgulhoso de sê-lo.
Mesmo assim, eu não compraria uma ação da companhia a 600 dólares. Acho que isso não vai se sustentar, e quem está comprando a esse preço, se não vender antes da debâcle, vai perder dinheiro...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Apple

A good Cook

Tim Cook’s first year as the technology giant’s boss has been a success. But the toughest test lies ahead

TALK about a hard act to follow. When Tim Cook replaced an ailing Steve Jobs as Apple’s chief executive on August 24th last year, he took over from the nearest thing the tech world had to a rock star. Some people wondered out loud how Jobs’s more humble second-in-command would fare in the absence of the firm’s brash and brilliant co-founder, who died in October. They need not have worried. As Mr Cook celebrates his first anniversary at Apple’s helm, the company continues to smash records.
On August 20th Apple’s market capitalisation reached over $623 billion, making it the most valuable listed company (if you ignore inflation) of all time. That title was previously held by Microsoft, another tech titan, whose market worth hit $615 billion in December 1999. Much of the credit for Apple’s phenomenal success goes to Jobs, the father of the iPhone and the iPad tablet computer. But Mr Cook also deserves praise for the way he has handled a tricky transition.
The process has not been without hiccups. In July Apple’s share price fell sharply after the company’s quarterly earnings disappointed investors, even though its net profit rose by 21%, to $8.8 billion. And earlier in the year Apple was lambasted for its use of Foxconn, a supplier under fire from labour activists for failings such as excessive working hours at its Chinese facilities. Mr Cook promptly went on a highly publicised tour of a Foxconn factory in China. Apple and Foxconn subsequently pledged to improve workers’ conditions there. This week the Fair Labour Association, a non-profit group that audits workplaces, said progress had been made, but more still needed to be done to cut overtime hours without unduly harming workers’ incomes.
Veteran Apple-watchers say this and other episodes are a sign that Mr Cook is more likely to pay attention to opinions outside Apple than his predecessor. “I think he’s a little bit more sensitive to criticism than Steve Jobs was,” says Tim Bajarin of Creative Strategies, a consultancy. Apple’s boss has certainly listened to calls from Wall Street for the company to hand back some of its cash hoard, something Jobs was notoriously reluctant to do. Earlier this month, Apple paid its first dividend since 1995.
In addition to disarming critics and delighting investors, Apple has been dishing out lawsuits. As The Economist went to press, a testy court battle in America between the firm and Samsung over various patents connected with smartphones and tablet computers was drawing to a close. Like his mentor, Mr Cook is clearly not afraid of a fight. He also seems to be developing other Jobs-like traits, including a penchant for pithy put-downs. Asked on an analysts’ call whether personal computers and tablets could one day merge into a single device, Mr Cook shot back: “You can converge a toaster and a refrigerator, but those things are probably not going to be pleasing to the user.”
The big question is whether Apple’s boss has also learnt enough from his predecessor to keep the creative juices at the company flowing freely. In a blog post earlier this year George Colony, the boss of Forrester, a research firm, noted that the fortunes of companies such as Sony and Disney faded after their charismatic founders departed. He predicted that Apple would suffer a similar fate after coasting for a while on the back of existing products. But if Mr Cook can keep the firm’s talented senior executives on board and inspire them to conquer new markets like digital TV, where Apple has yet to make much of an impact, the firm could buck this trend. His big screen test awaits.