“Apple Inc. has had a bit of an underwhelming year, which has led many investors to wonder if the company’s momentum over the past decade is beginning to wane under Tim Cook’s leadership, particularly his strategy of generating debt against low interest rate bonds,” Chris Dier-Scalise writes for Benzinga. “On Tuesday, Marketfy options expert Nic Chahine joined Benzinga’s PreMarket Prep morning show to talk about his thoughts on Tim Cook’s Apple and whether the company will be able to break out of its recent funk.”
“Citing a lack of risk taking and persistent faith in its products, Chahine’s impression of Apple under Tim Cook was far from flattering. ‘I have little faith in Tim Cook. They say he’s a good operator, but he’s been shown to be a little gutless in his foresight as far as anything new. I think they’re missing the innovation, or maybe cockiness, that came with Steve Jobs,'” Dier-Scalise writes. “Chahine’s main criticism of Apple’s recent performance had less to do with the company’s stable of products and more to do with the long-term leadership within it. ‘I’ve always said: give Apple to Bezos and it would be a monster again.'”
“Since taking over Apple following Steve Jobs’ death in 2011, Tim Cook has leveraged nearly $80 million in debt to investors into bonds. Chahine made clear this short-term strategy will limit Apple’s future liquidity, ‘The more debt you have the less free cash flow you have,'” Dier-Scalise writes. “While he emphasized that Apple still looked technically sound in the short term, it has barriers ahead, ‘The future is not as sure as it was, long term. Apple has the potential to buy the #1 position in any industry they want, and they’re losing it.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Apple still has plenty of cash on hand and the ability “to buy the #1 position in any industry they want” (regulators willing, of course).
As for someone other than Tim Cook as Apple’s CEO: We can’t say that the thought has never crossed our minds, especially lately. We don’t like thinking of Apple as lazy, late, and uninspired, but, well, there you have it. We hope 2017 sees Apple executing on all cylinders again!
I guest actual profit means nothing…
It is not only the profits. Bezos is globalist neolib/neocon maniac that manages the most hacky and reactionary American newspaper of the latest years, Washington Post.
They were the biggest source of fakes news this year, starting from “reports” on the baseless alleged involvement of the Russian government in the hacks that exposed corruption within the Democratic party, continuing with claims that Drudge Report and TruthDig are Russian propaganda outlets for not supporting Hillary, and ending with publishing a third party blog post claiming that Hillary has won popular vote due to mass voting by illegal immigrants only to later accuse Trump of spreading fake news, while not admitting responsibility for publishing incorrect article in the first place (WaPo said that readers should have mentioned a tiny logo that should indicate that the blog post came from partners, not directly from WaPo).
Give it up, DErss. You cannot change reality just by claiming the opposite. I am personally appalled by your incredible twisting of the facts. But you and people like you actually seem to believe what you post, no matter how absurd. I have to keep reminding myself that it is your right to spew bullshit publicly and on a regular basis. But that is also what makes this country great, isn’t it?
Any example of “twisting of the facts” by me? I was very specific. I gave three concrete examples of WaPo’s fake news.
Dude, you need to see someone who can possibly bring you back to reality.
The reality, according to you, is Democratic establishment’s lunacy that Drudge Report is a Russian operation?
I will continue to repeat this: Apple has one big issue with HAVING MULTIPLE OPERATING SYSTEMS.
Apple cannot make a product like the Surface Studio PC because of the limitations of their software.
OS X was effectively developed in the late 1980s at NeXT and uses an ancient desktop metaphor. The near future of computing is multi-touch with large screens and other input modes. This will usher in new user interfaces and new metaphors to make the current desktop operating systems antiquated.
With iOS, Apps are terribly limited with Card Views and what they can actually do: many Apps are horrible and even the ones that are ok are so stripped down to render them effectively useless.
If I were running Apple, I’d be working day and night to deliver this future and not chasing R&D unicorns like electric cars and fooling around with computer watches whose screens are too small to be sufficient computing platforms; battery life too short to render an effective product.
John Sculley chased after a bunch of R&D unicorns that bled lots of money and resulted in hardly any commercial success. So far, Tim Cook is doing exactly this.
We find ourselves once again with history repeating itself: Apple needs a bold new operating and computing vision, or they will be left behind.
2017 will thus not bring much: Apple is hamstrung by its operating systems.
I couldn’t agree more. This is the future of Apple struggling with its own systems, hardwares and softwares. Sad to see that’s the case for an old establishment lacking of direction where there are so many new start ups company which are far more innovative but lacking of funds to grow.
Ballmer tripled profits at Microsoft. And look where that ended.
Click bait.
Mac user since 1988
It’s the best out there, but has more issues than ever. Those two ideas don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
Time was when things like the Apple Human Interface Guidelines were the basis of how well Mac operating systems AND software worked, and that made Apple what it is.
Now, the apps that are built for both Mac and Windows generally work equally well.
it’s now the app developers that determine how well things work, not so much OS developers. Apple could get that advantage back by going back to those guidelines in the OS and ESPECIALLY Apple apps.
Will they? My guess is that the developers at Apple are so young that they might not be aware of the guidelines, and heaven forbid they could acknowledge something created when they were 3 years old. Didn’t the history of the world begin the day they were born?
The hits keep coming. Even Tim Cook’s mom thinks he should resign as CEO.
Clearly, very clearly, Apple is no longer innovative as a company under Tim Cook’s stewardship; and neither is it a growth equity for those who invest in technology. If he and the board do not double (triple?) the current 1.9% dividend in March (assuming partial repatriation of their overseas cash hoard), my family and I are out, out, out. Make no mistake, we’ll still purchase most company products (probably), but investing long term in AAPL will certainly be off the table.
you are out. No company with any sense of financial sanity is going to pay a dividend of 5.7% regardless of the status of profits kept overseas. You have a strong opinion which you are entitled too, but equating it with your financial view as expressed in your comment, indicates you don’t really know to much about managing finances/public equity/dividend strategy. Apple is not a private equity operation and the scenario you describe is more fitting for a closely held PE firm designed with a primary mission to produce paid out income for its partners.
I am not a fan of Cook and do not think he is the guy to lead Apple moving forward, but financial moves designed to assuage disappointed stockholders is just silly. The money should be used for acquisitions, finding high risk innovative ideas/R&D and a one time special dividend. Raising the annual dividend to your suggested rate would actually devalue the stock and jeopardize the ability of the new leadership we want to move forward.
See you later, Randian. You are looking for something that will not happen. Invest in AAPL or not as you please. But do not do so based on wishful thinking.
I would assume they are caught up in the new building as well over this past year or so.
It may well be the case that the Apple space ship became a disruptive distraction…but since that project was Steve Jobs’s pride and joy, Tim Cook wasn’t about to knife the baby. He knew that Apple was rich enough to stick it out for a lacklustre year or two, whilst Jony Ive distracted us with baubles.
After the structure is finished and the dust has settled, we’ll be sure to see a surge in innovation and productivity when they turn their full attention to that pesky pipeline. Maybe Mario the plumber could unstop it for them.
So first it was Musk and now its Bezos. Who’s next – Ballmer? Cooks time may be coming to an end, he definitely does not seem obsessed with the business as someone who runs a company like this must be but clearly Steve Jobs could have chosen ANYONE and he went with Cook. I still have faith that Jobs knew what he was doing.
That’s the point that everyone paying homage to an area just below Steve’s beltline keeps missing. IF you want to talk what would Steve do, he’d pick THIS guy. 🙂
My BOB!, they are letting people in Colorado write articles high.
Jeff Bezos, this person is Rocky Mountain High.
I know Pipeline Tim can’t do it, but Jeff Bezos… DUDE!
All of hear articles and “opinions” are for one purpose and one purpose only: drive down the stock price so the shorts can make their margin back. Pump and dump, rinse and repeat, that’s the way Wall Street treats apple. Would Jeff bezos be better than Tim Cook? Possibly, because then apple could release ZERO sales figures for any device and claim they’re a success, LOSE MONEY EVERY QUARTER (or make a couple million every fifth quarter), and have a P/E of 613.7 even though the company could make nothing and have no strong cash position….
You know, ignoring facts, like strong company fundamentals, record sales (that are ACTUAL CONCRETE NUMBERS) and 250 billion in the bank, which seems to be the mo of these morons.
Have to agree.
How long did it take before the thing that Amazon started with (books) actually showed a profit?
Your analysis is like saying a person that has a large bank account but little material possessions is richer than a person that has gone from owning a bookstore to being the ruler of a ‘nation’ with excellent infrastructure.
Ridiculous
How would you describe Apple vs Amazon? I feel most people look at how much profit Apple makes but not so much the physical assets and operational infrastructure in comparison to their peers and then draw conclusions on how much more Apple is ‘worth’.
The way I would describe it is simple math. Amazon is basically a retail warehouse that leverages delivery systems. They even sell there “competitors” products on their site. They don’t really make anything save for their basics brand which are rebadged components, and their fire line of products are all commodity parts designed for purchasing amazon video services. However with all of that, their profits are basically non existent, and they have no cash position or real assets. They don’t even own their real estate, they land lease it. So they are the very definition of “cash poor” and any one part of their business faltering could easily sink them since they operate a lot on commercial paper for financing.
Apple on the other hand could simply PURCHASE amazon in cash and still have enough money left over to buy out adobe, hp, Sony, Logitech, and myriad other companies in their sphere. The sheer amount of liquid assets that apple possesses means that they could run revenue neutral for almost a century. Even if they lost one of their tent poles, they have more than enough to weather the storm for decades, and no one would have to be downsized. That’s a fundamentally strong company. The only debt they’ve issued is to buy back their own shares, and they can pay off that debt when the bonds mature with one check, completely fincalially stable. And they own their real estate with the exception of about 30 mall stores and the leased buildings in Cupertino which will be replaced with the new headquarters. They don’t use commercial paper for payroll at all, and they pay the taxes they owe. (Regardless of the nonsense with Ireland)
When did those things become crimes in the business world? If they made razor thin margins like everyone else would they be thought of better? I honestly feel that this year is bizzaro world and I will wake up from this fever dream soon….
Ok, I see you still see only the ‘retail’ tip of the iceberg side of Amazon and have not informed yourself of Amazon’s true size. Not surprising since not many look beyond that when they hear Amazon.com. In addition to what you see of Amazon, the company consists of the logistics and services ‘segments’.
The services segment you would possibly have heard of as Amazon Web Services (AWS) THE largest and most successful of the cloud companies which has large customers using them (including Apple for a large portion of their iCloud needs). Apple primarily uses AWS as a Storage service, however that also is only a small part. Another part consist of backend logistics software that was built in-house, used for years and then offered as a complete web service to other businesses to run their own logistics on a tried and true system. Yet another segment involves leasing and running scalable virtual machines on the cloud for many large and popular services including Hulu, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, etc. Still another segment deals with moving massive amounts (think billions of Terabytes) of data to and from companies and Amazon’s datacenters via providing semis with specially equipped trailers full of Servers and Hard drives with a high speed data hardline to go to the client site to connect directly and upload/download the data rather than using the ‘slower’ method of over the Internet..
Amazon Prime is a consumer oriented service that primarily serves as the stickiest way of gaining and retaining satisfied customers the world has ever seen with benefits increasing all the time. For $99/yr ($49 for Amazon Student Prime) you get access to music and video streaming, Twitch Prime, free shipping, shopping deals, unlimited photo storage for you and 4 others and more. I would have to say it is the most successful and lucrative ‘product’ Amazon has in its portfolio.
On the logistics side, Amazon now owns and operates Cargo ships and Aircraft to supplement the ship and air freight services they require to move the massive amounts of product Amazon deals with. This is in addition to owning and operating distribution centers, robots, and their huge fleet of trucks (probably a portion will soon also be robotic).
I really don’t think Apple with all its cash could buy an operational Amazon let alone have anything left over to buy the other companies you mention. Maybe if Amazon for some reason declares bankruptcy and there was a ‘Fire’ sale 🙂 of their assets it may be possible, but at that point a huge portion of the companies on the Internet will also fall due to dependency on AWS and/or storefronts on Amazon.com. I dare say that should Amazon and Apple both disappear tomorrow, the worldwide impact felt from losing Amazon would be a lot more than losing Apple.
I don’t know about being thought better by just making razon-thin margins like everyone else. At least on the Enterprise side it would require some kind of roadmap so that businesses investing in Apple’s hardware know that they won’t be left holding ‘legacy’ products with no upgrade path in only 5 or so years. Since Apple favors soldering parts in their devices, they may have to offer a HW upgrade service/discount to pacify those Enterprise buyers which includes, if necessary, sub-services to move data/settings from the old device to the new at an organizational level to reduce disruption of operations.
Mathematically amazons market cap is $360 billion, apple has $279 billion in cash. In physical appreciating assets, they have ~300 billion which could be leveraged for any discrepancy in financing. They could easily purchase amazon and have much left over, depending on the structure of the deal.
I understand amazons logistical prowess very well as well as amazon web services, but you’re ignoring that their fundamentals aren’t solid and they don’t actually own appreciating assets, or have a strong cash position, or make a profit, and the fact that they borrow to meet payroll with commercial paper (bridge loans).
With a company trading at 613 times earnings and that makes no money, you’re looking a lot of air inflating something that isn’t really there. That’s what happened with a lot of companies back in the early 2000’s, they were overvalued and became self sustaining houses of cards until they couldn’t borrow any more money.
All of your good points regarding amazon and their ecosystem with your prime could easily be likened to google. They also have a similar structure, and their hosting services are the largest in the world. But at their CORE, they are just an advertising company that doesn’t really have any physical assets. At amazons core, they are a retailer, if all of that other stuff went away the retail operation would collapse under its own weight because it doesn’t have eneough assets to operate without constant investment. Do you understand the point I’m trying to make?
Basically if apple lost iPhone tomorrow, they would have more than enough money to ride out the next 6-7 decades losing money even if their shares became worthless, because they don’t have to rely on constant new investment to keep operating. The least they could actually be worth in real terms is $270 billion dollars because that is the physical cash they actually have. And that’s assuming all of their real estate collapses in value as well. That is a strong company. One that doesn’t actually own any assets and would be worthless without new investment? That’s not one.
Would have replied to this earlier but needed my sleep. 😀
As I understand the current financial condition of Apple, if you only counted the funds in the U.S. Apple would be in the ‘red’ for liquid assets and in order to repatriate funds, the majority of which is outside the U.S., would have to currently pay a hefty tax (~35%) reducing capital to use for acquiring Amazon. If we use $279B that would be about $186B after repatriation. Even after acquisition since Amazon runs rather lean I would suspect further funds will be required to integrate the acquisition in to Apple reducing the pile that might be used to purchase other companies. You mentioned ~300 billion in assets that could be leveraged (I’m going to go with real estate and facilities here) which at a conservative 80% loan to collateral would be about $240B. Added to the repatriated cash would yield ~$426B. Stockholders of Amazon would probably vote a friendly acquisition bringing in the possibility of ‘poison pilling’ the stock raising acquisition costs further. I will admit even at this point it will be possible to acquire Amazon but there will be very little left to spend elsewhere and the process would probably distract Apple from creating new products if the new HQ is any evidence. Way too costly IMO.
I agree that much of the assets that Amazon does own is depreciating in nature. A huge chunk of any profits made by Amazon is invested back into the company constantly which leads them to consistently report razor-thin margins. It may be interesting to see how fast a cash hoard could be acquired by Amazon should they stop cold turkey in investing in itself for a year. You mentioned that Amazon uses commercial paper to make payroll and I have tried to research that but have not been successful in finding any information. If you could I would be interested in what you are using as reference. The best I could find was a claim by a ‘veteran’ Amazon employee that listed among his complaints that the ‘signing’ bonus was more like a payday loan that had to be paid back. Reading further it turns out that it does need to be paid back should you quit within 2 years of entering employment with Amazon. Sounds like a long term version of what a bank would do to have you open a new account.
I understand what you mean about “air inflating something that isn’t really there.” Though I would think after the initial few loans banks would refuse to give any more if there really was no profit or collateral to back it. I suspect that Amazon’s constant reinvestment in its own business and paying existing loans on time is a big factor in acquiring new loans to replace old. Also with the size of Amazon I’m sure banks globally are competing to give them loans at really low rates. I understand Amazon has had for a while a loan program they offer to Amazon sellers so there is probably some really good stability built in. I also notice that for me purchasing from Amazon.co.jp or .uk allows me to pay in US funds which appear to bypass the credit cards’ normal foreign exchange charges. I’m sure there is some interesting savings going on there.
I would have to agree that Amazon is primarily a retail company at it’s core but unlike other retailers they actually sell their expertise in retailing and logistics as a AWS product to other businesses. According to Trefis currently AWS is Amazon’s 3rd largest revenue source behind 1)Electronics/General Merch. and 2)Media (vid/music/ebooks), by 2023 Trefis projects AWS will surpass Media by a comfortable margin.
I think Amazon with at least their Prime Video is creating a nice asset pool with original programming that people want to watch. Alexa licensing may also be a pretty good asset since they have released their API for 3rd party OEMs.
Perhaps there is something about a single product line as a point of failure (iPhone) vs the more abstract Search/Ad revenue (Google) or Global warehouse to doorstep retail system revenue (Amazon) as points of failure that is being factored in to stock valuations. IMO when companies get as large as they do, normal business ‘common sense’ valuation goes out the window.
On a slightly different tack, perhaps Apple losing the iPhone would be the best incentive for Apple to be one of the best product think tanks again. It seems that Apple is depending too much on the iPhone carrying them into the future to push themselves to ‘think different’. Maybe something like LG’s new prototype tablet that folds into a phablet with front and back displays or the 1mm thick ‘wallpaper’ TV.
But I do understand and agree with amazon’s global footprint l. However Akamai could replace AWS almost overnight if they went away, so that’s not as strong as it looks. Their most solid business is the online retail store, and as a prime customer myself I would miss that. My basic point is that they aren’t strong in the areas that long lasting companies need to be strong in to survive.
I’m not sure how you can even hint at Akamai (not even in the top 20 cloud service providers at present) replacing AWS (currently market leader with 31% share) overnight. The top 5 which includes AWS owns over 52% marketshare. It’s my opinion and by the looks of current articles on the subject that AWS is much stronger than it looks.
I will agree that if Amazon (and Apple) were normal companies, the business methods they use would be looked upon as ‘edgy’ and they would probably not last long. However, the sheer size and the resources they both command now globally really does make them ‘hard to fail”. In the ‘big’ picture, I see the current competition between Amazon/Google and Apple is convenience vs privacy with both sides working on heightening security.
I’ll agree with you on that, the market does allow these type of practices to work it’s just a question if it’ll last. My Akami comment was strictly based on potential capacity, they have the racks to do what aws does if necessary if that were to fail. That’s all I’m saying, although aws is strong now, it’s core competency could be absorbed by others in short order. But it does appear to be a behemoth at the moment.
“Apples” vs. Oranges. There is little to compare. While they have some businesses in common their profiles, strategy and products are for the most part, very different.
I agree that they are very different companies, I simply commented at that point that a company’s ‘worth’ is not really just how much you have accumulated in the bank. I’m not sure how it could be done but perhaps when comparing company’s annual ‘profits’, acquisitions during that same period should be added to account for reinvested profits for that year and normalize comparisons.
Really – What are you people smoking – Apple is not doing anything wrong – Name any company that is doing even half of the innovation that Apple is doing today. (Innovation that works) not just crap for show like a lot of companies are doing.. They just add features that don’t work and say they are better..
I will agree that product wise (very visible to the common consumer) Apple is on the innovative side but I would have to also say that no one matches Amazon selling wise (logistics, sales management, business data infrastructure tech) in innovation. Even the mighty Apple pays Amazon for services. To give a few examples, Amazon owns a part of practically every portion of the logistic chain from Warehouse to your doorstep. They have even paid for USPS Sunday delivery by funding the USPS. You have a business with Zetabytes of data to transfer to AWS? No problem, they will send one or more container trucks to your data site full of servers and data storage devices to transfer them directly at 1000x the rate of the fastest ISP services to the HDs that become part of Amazon’s Datacenters.
My point is innovation by the largest companies are not necessarily visible to the regular public.
Big mistake to compare Apple to other companies to arrive at your “Whatever” justification. Has MS, Samsung, Lenovo ever been associated with the motto, “it just works”? Instead, compare to Apple’s own history, pedigree, stated goals. If you can’t say something’s missing, check your pulse.
Apple competes with itself. And at the moment, it is losing.
Something is happening, Apple has lost something. Big numbers are great but reputation is also important. Personally I am not going anywhere because I love my Apple stuff and Apple has what I need but looking forward I am concerned that next time I need a new laptop, router or desktop computer that Apple won’t have what I want and that I’ll have to compromise some how and this concerns me and has me feeling less good about Apple and the future of Apple.
That sums up my feeling pretty close!
Any voice that thinks Apple needs to be a monster doesn’t get it. Amazon is a monster and Apple needs none of its likeness. I think Steve would say, like he did of MS, Amazon has “no taste.” With that said, the reporter implies TC’s known as a good operator. I’ve read/heard, he’s an operational genius. Fast forward to TC as CEO, there’s been more operational blunders during his reign than my memory can recall. Some quite basic/fundamental. Say nothing about innovation, or lack therein. People that think Apple’s profit (only) implies a secure future are naive, imo Profit takes quite awhile to slow. Then one day, a company wakes up from their BlackBerry-like dream.
Flood his inbox with your complaints.
Demand whats going on in this Apple?
Nonsense!
This was the first Christmas in a LONG, LONG time that I didn’t want ANYTHING from Apple. Apple Watch = dud; iPhone 7 = camera issue (upon zoom, images look water-colored); MacBook Pro = poor design (key ports removed; touch bar is a hype; battery concerns; overpriced); iPads (yawn… not updated in a long time); desktop Macs (do they still make desktop Macs?)… Apple TV = bust! (no amazon video)…
No fan of Cook, but Jeff Bezos they have to kidding…
There’s been a Microsoft coup here? This is not the place I go to for Verge-like anti-Apple nonsense.
Please try at least to be objective, otherwise MDN is game over for me.
“Lazy late and uninspired”? Puleeze. Check out the AirPods and wash your mouth.
Replace Tim Cook
Sign Here
https://www.change.org/p/apple-board-of-directors-remove-tim-cook-as-ceo-of-apple
Don’t send a girl to do a man’s job.
I wouldn’t let Bezos near my dog let alone a company like Apple. He would run it into the ground by selling Fire’s, Echo’s and selling Apps using Tabs. He has a strong company that show’s no profits, how would that work with stockholders like Apple has?
Maybe, but at the same time Apple would be a company you couldn’t avoid using in one form or another indirectly. (e.g. name a few successful online companies that don’t make use of AWS)
>>>>
Apple still has plenty of cash on hand and the ability “to buy the #1 position in any industry they want” (regulators willing, of course).
(Apple user since ’84)
I’m sitting home from surgery today. I’m using the Amazon Tap ($39 on sale) to get things done, entertain, etc.
I’m inching towards the Amazon eco system. Apple you really blew it here. Now Google is in this arena too.
The last few years… nothing but speed bumps and a missed opportunity at the holiday season for their only new device. Very sad.
It seems from the comments that users are gravitating to less pricy alternatives with Amazon’s electronic toys as well as Google and Hulu for that matter. I have a second get Apple TV and wanted to upgrade, but decided not to since Hulu does what I want and it’s older than the Apple TV and its HD. Smart TV’s, Google, Amazon, Hulu; that’s a tough market for ATV that prices at $149 and delvers, what, App’s? I don’t get it.
Like anyone should care what another ADHD Wallstreet, testosterone supplementing a-hole wants. Here’s what I want. Stop manipulating your “shorts” because you can’t keep your hands off your own dick. if Wallstreet wasn’t full of these follow-the-shiny-object idiots, AAPL would be double its current value. MDN, stop feeding the animals.
Right you are. So you agree that Cook, who got scammed by Icahn and is currently dancing to wall street’s fiddle with useless stock games and pointless bond issues. For what? Apple would be more profitable with a return to user focused products at a wider range of price points.
OMFG who wrote this?!
Oh, you did, Chris Dier-Scalise who writes for Benzinga.
BizTardiness is rampant.
Don’t think so …. discerning people that buy Apple Inc. devices & services value their privacy & security, which we saw Tim Cook defend gallantly during 2016 against all-comers.
Privacy & Security is about to become an absolutely key differentiator, upon which most people will expect those core values in their service provider. Bezos does not even know the meaning of the terms “Security” & “Privacy”!
Though I don’t agree with adding Bezos, something needs to change. Hate to admit it, but the “wow” has disappeared without Steve at the helm. This is the 2nd time it happened without Steve, but this time, there is no hope of his return.
I have little or no faith in the ability of Jeff Bezos to do the right thing for Apple, apple’s employees and for the user’s of Apple products and services. He has a terrible record of employee abuse and abusing the company’s that are his suppliers.
I can agree with that, but are companies in it to profit from suppliers or satisfied customers? Seems Amazon is doing a really good job there in having a loyal and satisfied customer base that consistently purchase product.