Asymco Workshops Australia 2013

Screen Shot 2013-04-24 at 4-24-6.38.35 PM

I will be in Australia in May and thought to invite local readers to join me for a few hours of in-depth discussion on the future of our industry.

I plan to have an event in Sydney on the 3rd in the morning (9:00 to noon at the Radisson Blu 27 O’Connell. Press Room) and in Melbourne on the 6th in the afternoon (1:30 to 4:30 PM at Victoria University City Flinders Campus: Level 12, Function Room 4, 300 Flinders Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3000).

Nominally, the topic will be: The history and future of computing using disruptive analysis.

I will present recent material (including the latest data from Apple) and we will have a few hours of Q&A.

Tickets are $120 and seating will be limited to 100.

You can register here: Asymco Workshops Australia 2013.

  • Davidmjx

    Horace, I’m really thrilled that you’re coming to Melbourne. Looking forward to your talk.

    However, I’d like to confirm the date. Is it on the 5th of May or 6th of May?

    • atreloar

      My ticket says the 6th, for what it’s worth…

    • It’s the 6th. I edited the text to reflect that.

  • MOD

    With $50b Apple could buy 125 mil of its shares at $400 ea. This would decrease outstanding shares by about 13.3% from 939,629,000 to 814,629,000. This would have the effect of increasing its basic EPS by 15.34%, from $10.16 to $11.72.

    • MOD

      But more significantly this is a permanent increase in EPS. It would affect every quarter from now on — the bad quarters, and also the good quarters. They would all receive a 15% boost in EPS.

      • Shareholders (who don’t sell their shares to Apple) will end up owning more of the company with each share and hence the value they hold will increase but shareholders who forego their shares will lose value in exactly the same proportion. The net value created is zero.

      • stoleyrbike

        How do the shareholders who forgo their shares lose?

      • MOD

        What Horace is saying is that there is no net value generated by the buying (and selling) of stock. Value is only generated by developing products, software, etc.

        I do not fully agree. The simple act of monetary investment creates some value, perhaps not tangible, but still.

        I think Oppenheimer & Co. are under tremendous pressure to keep their stock up. Why? Because they pay their employees in stock, and morale suffers when the stock is down.

        Second, investing its cash in Apple is a far, far better ROI than investing its cash in Treasuries and other companies bonds.

        Third, O. & Co. I suspect are putting a floor on the stock price. They are buying stock under, say $400/share..

      • MOD

        They are outplaying Wall Street and the hedge funds by using their own cash, rather than borrowed cash or stock. This is meant to reassure investors and employees. It also guarantees a minimum price.

        This is similar to the strategy that Berkshire’s Buffet has adopted, as his charities sell his stock: the company itself will buy the stock if the market won’t.

        Short sellers holding Apple are in big, big trouble now. If I had extra cash I would write put options.

      • If they sell shares at $400 to Apple then they forego the increase in value that their retirement would produce. They are worse off than those who held. The only way to prevent losing value is to not sell shares. But then Apple would have no shares to buy and none to retire and the people who hold gain nothing. Back to zero net value.

  • Enzos

    > a few hours of Q&A < [!!]

    Don't forget to enjoy yourself while you're here, Horace. Beautiful calm, clear autumn weather at present and the water's still warm enough for swimming at the beach (that's Avoca yesterday below).Cheers!

  • RossS12

    Hi Horace,

    Could you please change the signup details to make it clear that the $120 is USD120 not AUD120. I assumed it was the latter and got slugged 3% overseas transaction fee – if I’d known I would have used my credit card that doesn’t have overseas transaction fees and better exchange rates. In the end the total in Aussie dollars wasn’t too much more than $120 but I absolutely hate giving transaction fees to credit card companies.

  • scryer99

    Horace – if it’s not too much trouble can you post the locations of the events here? I will be in Sydney on the 3rd and if my schedule permits I would like to attend, but it will be a last-minute thing.

  • obarthelemy

    Have Apple reiterated recently that they won’t do a games console ? Looking at what is happening with Nintendo/Sony/MS (on the down side), and Android (on the up side), as well as Apple’s SoCs’ GFX performance, launching a $200 console that doubles up as an Apple TV feels like a no-brainer ?

    • If Apple begins allowing Apple TV to run third party apps there won’t be a difference. Well, perhaps technically no difference. As far as the way games are built, sold and used, there could be a huge difference. As much difference as came to the software business when Applications became Apps.

      • obarthelemy

        Consoles have had downloadable games for a while. The issue is more that MS and Sony seem to be going or expensive and complicated machines that double up as HTPCs and media centers… The Kickstarter success of Ouya and Gamestick seem to point to high demand too.

        I think Apple could one-up everyone by tacking gaming chops onto the Apple TV, keeping the “iTunes + online gateway” functionnality, and letting devs loose on a new gamepad API. Cost of goods <$50, sellable for $200. I don't even think Online/Social is an asset, let alone a requirement. Compatibility with the rest of the Appstore not needed. Nor with touch, keyboards…

  • TechKarma

    Seems like this will be a fascinating discussion. Any possibility that this session will be recorded? I would be willing to do an iTunes download, etc.