Should you buy Apple stock or has the company run out of growth opportunities? What is my price prediction for Apple in the next years? Read until the end as I reveal my price target for Apple and also what I think will happen in the next couple of days, weeks & months!
~ Warning! Very Very Long Post~
Hello everyone! So, let’s go over some of the latest news on Apple before moving on to some fundamental and technical analysis, predictions and my price target for the stock in the next years.
So, let’s start with the news that Apple will cut the App Store commission in half for small app developers starting in the next days, this will affect developers who earn less than $1M annually from the App Store Sales. This is likely to lead to a small decline in commission revenues for Apple as around 98% of the app developers will qualify for this tax reduction from 30% to 15%, but all these small developers only contribute to about 5% of the estimated $50B in annual revenues from the App Store, so that would be only a $1.25B loss for the company, that is less than half a % of the company’s total net sales in the last fiscal year.
Also, these changes may lead to a potential long-term revenue boost, as it is likely this will lead to an increasing creation of apps which will generate more commissions in return.
Alongside this we also saw the company releasing the new MacBook’s with their first in-house chip, which promises faster video and imaging processing times, with both CPU and GPU performance up to 2 times faster than the latest PC laptop chip using just a fraction of the power consumption, with both of the macbooks promising big improvements in battery life. Apple is also expected to roll out even more in-house chips in future products, as they have started the 2-year breakup with Intel chips.
We also saw Morgan Stanley upgrading their base case to $191 at the end of November, as they have cited record lead times, supply chain forecasts and carriers demand as they expect that the company will sell around 270M iPhone in fiscal year 2021, that’s 50M more than the consensus and almost 30M more than the previous estimate of Morgan Stanley, with an average selling price of 842$, 9% more than the base case, as people tend to chose the more expensive and high tech versions of the lineup in this new 5G cycle.
The 5G super-cycle, which I believe is on the way, and will continue in the next years, as 5G become more available worldwide, could still be the biggest thing coming right away for the company with 5G smartphones expected to surpass 4G sales by 2024, with the average sale price of the 5G phones also coming down, helping them become more popular. This will also be helped by the recent entry to the Indian market, as India will probably become the world biggest country in the next decade, this could be a huge opportunity for Apple to start and take away market-share from their competitors like Samsung and Xiaomi which have the biggest market shares right now.
They also released an update iPad Pro and an all-new iPad Air in September which will also boost sales in this work-from-home environment that will keep the demand very high for this kind of products, just like the Macs. Alongside the increasing demand from the Wearables, Home & Accessories that include Air Pods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and many more products.
But the biggest reasons I believe Apple is poised for continued growth, is primarily due to its services business, as they start to offer more and more services like the Apple ONE BUNDLE, which include up to 6 services from (Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, the new Apple Fitness+ and the iCloud service) for a pretty reasonable price in my opinion starting from 15$ up to 30$/month, this could be a great option for families and even individuals who use their services a lot.
The latest services, Fitness+ just launched in the past days, and is a direct competitor to the likes of Peloton, as the service is available on the iPhone, iPad or even Apple TV. This also makes consumers buy the Apple Watch which syncs to the other devices to show you different information. The Fitness+ app just on its own is 8$/month or 80$/year which is less expensive than Peloton subscription which charges 13$ or even traditional gyms like Planet Fitness at 10$/month.
I think this will be the fastest growing sector for the company, as this aligns with the new macro trends, as the world is moving more and more to a digital approach to almost everything as consumer preferences, with more & more younger people reaching the point in life when they use these services start to align to this increasing digital approach.
We also shouldn’t forget the Apple Card & Apple Pay service among many others which also seem to gain from the move to digital & contactless payments, as this has been accelerated due to the current situation in the past year.
And one last piece of news, and the most recent one, is that Apple may have fast-tracked the Titan project. The Titan project is targeting a 2024 or 2025 push to develop an electric vehicle with advanced battery technologies, that will deliver significant increases in range at much lower costs than the current technologies while also offering self-driving capabilities.
It’s reported they will not use the same technology as Tesla Full-Self-Driving feature, but will use LIDAR sensors, similar to those that we can find in the latest iPhone 12 PRO.
I think Apple can go 2 ways with this project, they can either use the huge amount of cash the company has to buy another car-maker like Ford, GM or any other car manufacturer expect Tesla and Toyota which do have a big market cap, so that they can fast-track the potential manufacturing of cars, or they can enter into a partnership with big companies like Tesla, Volkswagen or any other car marker to either produce cars or license their technology to this other car-makers which would ultimately and probably have higher margin-returns than the effective manufacturing of cars. Apple’s current overall gross margins stand at 38% vs the 15% average of the world top 10 automakers by market cap, which is significantly lower.
But this Apple Car thing is so far out, and there are so many unknowns, I will not try to predict anything related to this until there is more clarity on the subject.
And last, before moving on to some predictions, here are some of the highlights that we heard from the latest investors conference meeting, as the CEO, Tim Cook expressed optimism ahead with the launch of many new products and services, especially the Home Pod Mini and the new 5G iPhones, as these new iPhones include new LIDAR scanners that greatly improve the camera capabilities, as the iPhone as seen very positive reviews. We also saw the Senior VP and CFO, Luca Maestri give us great outlook for the company as they expect the installed devices base to continue to growth despite already being at an all-time high as they have over 585M paid subscriptions on their platforms and expect this to surpass 600M by the end of 2020.
I also researched and found what products we can see in the near future, with the first half of 2021 bringing new iMacs, the AirPods3 and the iPad Pro, while in the FALL event we will probably get the new iPhone 13 alongside the iPhone SE PLUS and the Watch Series 7 with more products coming later in 2021 or that don’t have an estimated release date like the Air Pods Pro, the Air Tags and the iPad Mini 6.
So, before even starting, you should know that I am bull on Apple but I am willing to hear other opinions so don’t be afraid to leave a comment down below.
I have made some predictions based on the growth rate of the company, the latest plans announced by them and used some estimates. So, keep in mind this are only projections and are calculated by myself, this is not an investment advice and you should do your own research.
This are my 2025 projections for Apple, let’s take a closer look at them, each on their own.
So, in term of revenues, Apple has 5 big sources of income, which saw an overall increase of 6% despite lagging sales in the iPhone. The biggest revenue is by far the iPhone right now with over $137B in revenue in the fiscal year ending in September. I expect to see the iPhone sales increasing in the next years, especially in 2021, with the new 5G iPhone creating a super-cycle for the company, as most iPhone users, including myself here, as I will upgrade from my iPhone X, will switch to this new product. The iPhone sales have decreased in the last couple of years by 14% and 3% as a result of the product not having big improvements, as well as iPhone usually starting to last longer than previous models, so I expect to see a 12% increase in sales next year and a gradual decrease in the growth of sales as more people upgrade, ending with just a 5% growth in iPhone sales in 2025.
The next revenues stream is from the Mac, which has seen an increase in the past 2years, with revenues topping $28B this year after the huge demand from the work from home consumers. I expect this trend to continue as they plan to continue to launch better products and I can see the company having a similar growth next year before starting to decline slightly until 2025, also ending with a 5% growth.
The iPad is currently the smallest revenue stream for Apple but has also seen an increase in demand in the past 2 years with a 13% average increase in revenues. I also expect the iPad to continue to grow in the next couple of years, especially with the learn-from-home environment for kids, and even after this period ends, the transformation for learning will implicate more digital usage. I expect the iPad to see some similar growth to the Macs, especially with the latest generation also bringing a new iPad air to the market.
The 4th revenue stream and the fastest growing in the past 2 years, with an average growth of 33% are the wearables, home & accessories revenues. This have topped $30B this year, as Apple has also just launched the Apple Watch series 6 and also feature other great products like Apple TV, the Air Pods the Home Pod and the Home Pod mini alongside other third-party accessories.
I gave this revenue stream a growth of 20% starting next year with a gradual decrease to around 8% by 2025, as I believe this will become more & more popular as they start to offer more vertical integration.
And last, but by no means least, the revenue stream that I expect to grow the most and the fastest is the revenue from the services that Apple offers. This includes revenues from Apple Care, Advertising, Cloud Services, Payment Services like Apple Card & Apple Pay and of course the digital content which includes fees from the App Store alongside subscription-based income including the new Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ alongside the already know Apple Arcade, Apple Music, Apple News+, Apple TV+ and hopefully I don’t forget any others.
So, I expect this to become the clear 2nd biggest revenue stream for Apple by 2025, as I expect this to grow more than 20% next year, mainly due to the Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ followed up by a slightly decreasing growth, ending with a 10% increase in revenues in 2025.
I think this are fairly conservative base case scenarios for the revenues, as I expect them to continue to increase the other revenue streams and not have such a large percentage of the revenues coming from the iPhone sales as you can see in this chart.
In terms of expenses, I pretty much kept the same margins as in previous years, with a 68% expense ratio on product sales [ iPhone / iPad / Mac / WHA ] and 35% expense ratio on SERVICES, as this are way more lucrative.
In the past 3 years, the products gross margin was 32.7%, so I actually imply bigger expenses for the manufacturing and sales of products, as this is mostly impacted by the company’s supplier’s ability to make up for and demand, while for the services revenue, the gross margins for the last 3 years has been 63.5% on average, but I expect this to be more in-line with the 66% margin in this past year. So, if services manage to grow to about half the revenues from the iPhone, this will effectively double the gross revenues, as every buck gained in the service revenues account for 2$ in the product sales.
So, I expect the total revenues for Apple to increase from $274B in 2020 to over $440B by 2025, increasing by approximately 10%/year, while I will keep the expense ratio pretty much in-line and have them increasing by 11%/year, this would bring the total gross income for Apple to $177B, increasing mainly due to the services revenues as I said earlier. This growth is just above the 4year average, and below the 2018 levels, which we might see again with this 5G super-cycle and explosive growth in the services revenue.
I also think the company will continue to invest in both Capital Expenditure and Operating expenses.
I think the operating expenses will remain pretty much in line with the previous years, as this number has increased by 1% annually both in R&D and SG&A. So, I will keep the exact percentages from previous years, as I expect the revenue to increase, thus I don’t see a big increase percentage wise. This would account for over $60B in operating expenses by 2025 and over $11B in Capital Expenditures by 2025, as I expect this to increase, mainly due to the possible EV developments or investments in self-driving capabilities alongside other manufacturing capabilities. You can see that the Capex spending has been decreasing in the past years with just over $8.8B in payments for business acquisitions and the other traditional Capex spending. Some people may use the cash generated by investing activities as Capex, but that is more unreliable. I also can see the Capex going back up, so I wanted to be safe and implied a 10% growth.
This money would account for over $73B in expenses and would bring the profit for the company to almost $104B before interest and taxes.
Moving on, let’s see what interest income and expenses the company has had in the past few years. We can see a decrease in interest expense in the past few years as the company has been paying off debt, but they have also been generating less money in this department, with an overall decrease in this department of more than 50% in the past year, way less than the amount from 2018. So, for safety reasons, I used a 10% decline in both income and expenses related to interest, while increasing the other losses by 10%/year.
This would bring the company pre-tax income to just over $104B in 2025.
Let’s move on to taxes. I know the Federal income tax rate is 21% for the company, but the actual effective tax rate for the company was lower than 15% in the past year, mainly due to lower tax-rates on foreign earnings alongside tax-benefits and tax-settlements. The average effective tax rate has been just over 16% in the past 3 years, but with more and more of the revenues coming from outside the US, I think it’s safe to say that the company will have around a 15% effective tax rate by 2025, this obviously if nothing major changes in tax policy around the world.
So, Apple would have $88.6B in income after tax by 2025 and with the current outstanding shares standing at just under 17B, so I don’t even account for the company probably continuing to do share buybacks, this would mean a $5.22 future earnings/share. And with today’s price for Apple just around 136$, that would mean to company is trading at just over 26 times forward price to earnings.
I don’t think Apple will ever trade at a discount again, with the current PE standing at over 40, I believe this will eventually go down, probably to around 35, despite the increase in services revenue, which is highly valued by investors. I think we can see Apple trade somewhere near 35 times P/E in 2025, especially if something big happens with the EV project, this could be even higher, just look at Tesla which trades at insane P/E. Of course, we also have to take into consideration the dividends that will be received from owning the stock, as Apple has started to pay dividends almost a decade ago and has 9 years of dividend growth, with a 10% annual rate of growth in the past 5 years. Here is the dividend growth history for the company, as I also went conservative on this estimate and implied a 7% growth for the next 2 years, 6% for 2023 and 2024 and just 5% in 2025.
So here are my 3 price targets for the company, including dividends but not reinvested. My bear case scenario is that Apple will trade at almost 165$ which implies a return of over 21% by 2025, while my base case scenario would see Apple trading at 195$ with a return of capital of 43%. I will also make the bull case for Apple trading at 225$ by 2025 with dividends included, which would imply just over 65% in gains by then.
I think this is possible as Apple has also continued to buy back shares of the company on a constant basis, as they continue to an impressive campaign with over $72B worth of common stock repurchased in 2020. They continue to buy back shares at a very fast pace, having repurchased over 1.3B shares in 2019 and 2018, while also issuing less stock every year.
So here is the full spreadsheet that I have projected for Apple by 2025 and the breakdown of everything i estimated [ 1 / 2 ] , if you do have another opinion or a suggestion please leave a comment down below, I think I have been conservative in most of my projections, but feel free to give your opinion.
Keep in mind, these targets might sound ridiculous, but just look at the growth Apple has had in the last 5years. The company has increased in value by more 400% in just the past 5years and is over 100.000% up since it started trading. So yes, the valuation is mad right now for the company. So, are you willing to bet against Apple?
The company also has pristine financials, with more than $65B in total assets compared to total liabilities, and more than $38B in cash and cash equivalents.
So, what do I expect in the next couple of days, weeks and months for Apple?
Let’s look at this CHART, so starting with the stock split, Apple saw a correction within the September stock market pullback, in a buy the news & sell the event, after a huge runup post-announcement of the stock split. The stock entered a consolidation period, and didn’t have any big catalysts, especially with new iPhone lineup not being included in the Q4 results due to the late launch. The stock found some levels of resistance near the $120 levels that it struggled to get past but acted also as support after breaking them just before the recent news of the possible EV developments or self-driving-features to be licensed to other car manufacturers. After that news the stock spiked and has now reached the previous highs made before the stock split and is facing some resistance, if the stock pushes over $140 I think we can officially say that it broke the resistance at those levels and is not just a fake-out. But I think it’s likely that the stock will consolidate between 122 and 135$ in the next weeks until the next iPhone sales and quarterly results are released, as the stock has entered overbought territory again with an RSI over 70, the first time since the stock split.
So, what would I do? Well, I own Apple stock, and I really believe this company will remain the biggest or one of the biggest in the future, so I would really add on any weakness that the stock shows before the next quarter earnings are released, as typically Q1 earnings are the best for the company due to increased holiday sales combined with the launch of new products. I think any entry below 130$ would be really nice to start and build a position or increase it if you already own the stock. As I believe Apple is one of the most stable stocks out there with large institutional holders like Vanguard, BlackRock and Berkshire owning over 900M shares each.
Thank you everyone for reading! Hope you enjoyed the content! Be sure to leave a comment down below with your opinion on the stock market!
Have a great day and see you next time!

Should you buy Apple stock or has the company run out of growth opportunities? What is my price prediction for Apple in the next years? Read until the end as I reveal my price target for Apple and also what I think will happen in the next couple of days, weeks & months!
~ Warning! Very Very Long Post~
Hello everyone! So, let’s go over some of the latest news on Apple before moving on to some fundamental and technical analysis, predictions and my price target for the stock in the next years.
[Disclosure: I made this DD last month, but I wasn't part of this Subreddit until the last few days]
So, let’s start with the news that Apple will cut the App Store commission in half for small app developers starting in the next days, this will affect developers who earn less than $1M annually from the App Store Sales. This is likely to lead to a small decline in commission revenues for Apple as around 98% of the app developers will qualify for this tax reduction from 30% to 15%, but all these small developers only contribute to about 5% of the estimated $50B in annual revenues from the App Store, so that would be only a $1.25B loss for the company, that is less than half a % of the company’s total net sales in the last fiscal year.
Also, these changes may lead to a potential long-term revenue boost, as it is likely this will lead to an increasing creation of apps which will generate more commissions in return.
Alongside this we also saw the company releasing the new MacBook’s with their first in-house chip, which promises faster video and imaging processing times, with both CPU and GPU performance up to 2 times faster than the latest PC laptop chip using just a fraction of the power consumption, with both of the macbooks promising big improvements in battery life. Apple is also expected to roll out even more in-house chips in future products, as they have started the 2-year breakup with Intel chips.
We also saw Morgan Stanley upgrading their base case to $191 at the end of November, as they have cited record lead times, supply chain forecasts and carriers demand as they expect that the company will sell around 270M iPhone in fiscal year 2021, that’s 50M more than the consensus and almost 30M more than the previous estimate of Morgan Stanley, with an average selling price of 842$, 9% more than the base case, as people tend to chose the more expensive and high tech versions of the lineup in this new 5G cycle.
The 5G super-cycle, which I believe is on the way, and will continue in the next years, as 5G become more available worldwide, could still be the biggest thing coming right away for the company with 5G smartphones expected to surpass 4G sales by 2024, with the average sale price of the 5G phones also coming down, helping them become more popular. This will also be helped by the recent entry to the Indian market, as India will probably become the world biggest country in the next decade, this could be a huge opportunity for Apple to start and take away market-share from their competitors like Samsung and Xiaomi which have the biggest market shares right now.
They also released an update iPad Pro and an all-new iPad Air in September which will also boost sales in this work-from-home environment that will keep the demand very high for this kind of products, just like the Macs. Alongside the increasing demand from the Wearables, Home & Accessories that include Air Pods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and many more products.
But the biggest reasons I believe Apple is poised for continued growth, is primarily due to its services business, as they start to offer more and more services like the Apple ONE BUNDLE, which include up to 6 services from (Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, the new Apple Fitness+ and the iCloud service) for a pretty reasonable price in my opinion starting from 15$ up to 30$/month, this could be a great option for families and even individuals who use their services a lot.
The latest services, Fitness+ just launched in the past days, and is a direct competitor to the likes of Peloton, as the service is available on the iPhone, iPad or even Apple TV. This also makes consumers buy the Apple Watch which syncs to the other devices to show you different information. The Fitness+ app just on its own is 8$/month or 80$/year which is less expensive than Peloton subscription which charges 13$ or even traditional gyms like Planet Fitness at 10$/month.
I think this will be the fastest growing sector for the company, as this aligns with the new macro trends, as the world is moving more and more to a digital approach to almost everything as consumer preferences, with more & more younger people reaching the point in life when they use these services start to align to this increasing digital approach.
We also shouldn’t forget the Apple Card & Apple Pay service among many others which also seem to gain from the move to digital & contactless payments, as this has been accelerated due to the current situation in the past year.
And one last piece of news, and the most recent one, is that Apple may have fast-tracked the Titan project. The Titan project is targeting a 2024 or 2025 push to develop an electric vehicle with advanced battery technologies, that will deliver significant increases in range at much lower costs than the current technologies while also offering self-driving capabilities.
It’s reported they will not use the same technology as Tesla Full-Self-Driving feature, but will use LIDAR sensors, similar to those that we can find in the latest iPhone 12 PRO.
I think Apple can go 2 ways with this project, they can either use the huge amount of cash the company has to buy another car-maker like Ford, GM or any other car manufacturer expect Tesla and Toyota which do have a big market cap, so that they can fast-track the potential manufacturing of cars, or they can enter into a partnership with big companies like Tesla, Volkswagen or any other car marker to either produce cars or license their technology to this other car-makers which would ultimately and probably have higher margin-returns than the effective manufacturing of cars. Apple’s current overall gross margins stand at 38% vs the 15% average of the world top 10 automakers by market cap, which is significantly lower.
But this Apple Car thing is so far out, and there are so many unknowns, I will not try to predict anything related to this until there is more clarity on the subject.
And last, before moving on to some predictions, here are some of the highlights that we heard from the latest investors conference meeting, as the CEO, Tim Cook expressed optimism ahead with the launch of many new products and services, especially the Home Pod Mini and the new 5G iPhones, as these new iPhones include new LIDAR scanners that greatly improve the camera capabilities, as the iPhone as seen very positive reviews. We also saw the Senior VP and CFO, Luca Maestri give us great outlook for the company as they expect the installed devices base to continue to growth despite already being at an all-time high as they have over 585M paid subscriptions on their platforms and expect this to surpass 600M by the end of 2020.
I also researched and found what products we can see in the near future, with the first half of 2021 bringing new iMacs, the AirPods3 and the iPad Pro, while in the FALL event we will probably get the new iPhone 13 alongside the iPhone SE PLUS and the Watch Series 7 with more products coming later in 2021 or that don’t have an estimated release date like the Air Pods Pro, the Air Tags and the iPad Mini 6.
So, before even starting, you should know that I am bull on Apple but I am willing to hear other opinions so don’t be afraid to leave a comment down below.
I have made some predictions based on the growth rate of the company, the latest plans announced by them and used some estimates. So, keep in mind this are only projections and are calculated by myself, this is not an investment advice and you should do your own research.
This are my 2025 projections for Apple, let’s take a closer look at them, each on their own.
So, in term of revenues, Apple has 5 big sources of income, which saw an overall increase of 6% despite lagging sales in the iPhone. The biggest revenue is by far the iPhone right now with over $137B in revenue in the fiscal year ending in September. I expect to see the iPhone sales increasing in the next years, especially in 2021, with the new 5G iPhone creating a super-cycle for the company, as most iPhone users, including myself here, as I will upgrade from my iPhone X, will switch to this new product. The iPhone sales have decreased in the last couple of years by 14% and 3% as a result of the product not having big improvements, as well as iPhone usually starting to last longer than previous models, so I expect to see a 12% increase in sales next year and a gradual decrease in the growth of sales as more people upgrade, ending with just a 5% growth in iPhone sales in 2025.
The next revenues stream is from the Mac, which has seen an increase in the past 2years, with revenues topping $28B this year after the huge demand from the work from home consumers. I expect this trend to continue as they plan to continue to launch better products and I can see the company having a similar growth next year before starting to decline slightly until 2025, also ending with a 5% growth.
The iPad is currently the smallest revenue stream for Apple but has also seen an increase in demand in the past 2 years with a 13% average increase in revenues. I also expect the iPad to continue to grow in the next couple of years, especially with the learn-from-home environment for kids, and even after this period ends, the transformation for learning will implicate more digital usage. I expect the iPad to see some similar growth to the Macs, especially with the latest generation also bringing a new iPad air to the market.
The 4th revenue stream and the fastest growing in the past 2 years, with an average growth of 33% are the wearables, home & accessories revenues. This have topped $30B this year, as Apple has also just launched the Apple Watch series 6 and also feature other great products like Apple TV, the Air Pods the Home Pod and the Home Pod mini alongside other third-party accessories.
I gave this revenue stream a growth of 20% starting next year with a gradual decrease to around 8% by 2025, as I believe this will become more & more popular as they start to offer more vertical integration.
And last, but by no means least, the revenue stream that I expect to grow the most and the fastest is the revenue from the services that Apple offers. This includes revenues from Apple Care, Advertising, Cloud Services, Payment Services like Apple Card & Apple Pay and of course the digital content which includes fees from the App Store alongside subscription-based income including the new Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ alongside the already know Apple Arcade, Apple Music, Apple News+, Apple TV+ and hopefully I don’t forget any others.
So, I expect this to become the clear 2nd biggest revenue stream for Apple by 2025, as I expect this to grow more than 20% next year, mainly due to the Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ followed up by a slightly decreasing growth, ending with a 10% increase in revenues in 2025.
I think this are fairly conservative base case scenarios for the revenues, as I expect them to continue to increase the other revenue streams and not have such a large percentage of the revenues coming from the iPhone sales as you can see in this chart.
In terms of expenses, I pretty much kept the same margins as in previous years, with a 68% expense ratio on product sales [ iPhone / iPad / Mac / WHA ] and 35% expense ratio on SERVICES, as this are way more lucrative.
In the past 3 years, the products gross margin was 32.7%, so I actually imply bigger expenses for the manufacturing and sales of products, as this is mostly impacted by the company’s supplier’s ability to make up for and demand, while for the services revenue, the gross margins for the last 3 years has been 63.5% on average, but I expect this to be more in-line with the 66% margin in this past year. So, if services manage to grow to about half the revenues from the iPhone, this will effectively double the gross revenues, as every buck gained in the service revenues account for 2$ in the product sales.
So, I expect the total revenues for Apple to increase from $274B in 2020 to over $440B by 2025, increasing by approximately 10%/year, while I will keep the expense ratio pretty much in-line and have them increasing by 11%/year, this would bring the total gross income for Apple to $177B, increasing mainly due to the services revenues as I said earlier. This growth is just above the 4year average, and below the 2018 levels, which we might see again with this 5G super-cycle and explosive growth in the services revenue.
I also think the company will continue to invest in both Capital Expenditure and Operating expenses.
I think the operating expenses will remain pretty much in line with the previous years, as this number has increased by 1% annually both in R&D and SG&A. So, I will keep the exact percentages from previous years, as I expect the revenue to increase, thus I don’t see a big increase percentage wise. This would account for over $60B in operating expenses by 2025 and over $11B in Capital Expenditures by 2025, as I expect this to increase, mainly due to the possible EV developments or investments in self-driving capabilities alongside other manufacturing capabilities. You can see that the Capex spending has been decreasing in the past years with just over $8.8B in payments for business acquisitions and the other traditional Capex spending. Some people may use the cash generated by investing activities as Capex, but that is more unreliable. I also can see the Capex going back up, so I wanted to be safe and implied a 10% growth.
This money would account for over $73B in expenses and would bring the profit for the company to almost $104B before interest and taxes.
Moving on, let’s see what interest income and expenses the company has had in the past few years. We can see a decrease in interest expense in the past few years as the company has been paying off debt, but they have also been generating less money in this department, with an overall decrease in this department of more than 50% in the past year, way less than the amount from 2018. So, for safety reasons, I used a 10% decline in both income and expenses related to interest, while increasing the other losses by 10%/year.
This would bring the company pre-tax income to just over $104B in 2025.
Let’s move on to taxes. I know the Federal income tax rate is 21% for the company, but the actual effective tax rate for the company was lower than 15% in the past year, mainly due to lower tax-rates on foreign earnings alongside tax-benefits and tax-settlements. The average effective tax rate has been just over 16% in the past 3 years, but with more and more of the revenues coming from outside the US, I think it’s safe to say that the company will have around a 15% effective tax rate by 2025, this obviously if nothing major changes in tax policy around the world.
So, Apple would have $88.6B in income after tax by 2025 and with the current outstanding shares standing at just under 17B, so I don’t even account for the company probably continuing to do share buybacks, this would mean a $5.22 future earnings/share. And with today’s price for Apple just around 136$, that would mean to company is trading at just over 26 times forward price to earnings.
I don’t think Apple will ever trade at a discount again, with the current PE standing at over 40, I believe this will eventually go down, probably to around 35, despite the increase in services revenue, which is highly valued by investors. I think we can see Apple trade somewhere near 35 times P/E in 2025, especially if something big happens with the EV project, this could be even higher, just look at Tesla which trades at insane P/E. Of course, we also have to take into consideration the dividends that will be received from owning the stock, as Apple has started to pay dividends almost a decade ago and has 9 years of dividend growth, with a 10% annual rate of growth in the past 5 years. Here is the dividend growth history for the company, as I also went conservative on this estimate and implied a 7% growth for the next 2 years, 6% for 2023 and 2024 and just 5% in 2025.
So here are my 3 price targets for the company, including dividends but not reinvested. My bear case scenario is that Apple will trade at almost 165$ which implies a return of over 21% by 2025, while my base case scenario would see Apple trading at 195$ with a return of capital of 43%. I will also make the bull case for Apple trading at 225$ by 2025 with dividends included, which would imply just over 65% in gains by then.
I think this is possible as Apple has also continued to buy back shares of the company on a constant basis, as they continue to an impressive campaign with over $72B worth of common stock repurchased in 2020. They continue to buy back shares at a very fast pace, having repurchased over 1.3B shares in 2019 and 2018, while also issuing less stock every year.
So here is the full spreadsheet that I have projected for Apple by 2025 and the breakdown of everything i estimated [ 1 / 2 ] , if you do have another opinion or a suggestion please leave a comment down below, I think I have been conservative in most of my projections, but feel free to give your opinion.
Keep in mind, these targets might sound ridiculous, but just look at the growth Apple has had in the last 5years. The company has increased in value by more 400% in just the past 5years and is over 100.000% up since it started trading. So yes, the valuation is mad right now for the company. So, are you willing to bet against Apple?
The company also has pristine financials, with more than $65B in total assets compared to total liabilities, and more than $38B in cash and cash equivalents.
So, what do I expect in the next couple of days, weeks and months for Apple?
Let’s look at this CHART, so starting with the stock split, Apple saw a correction within the September stock market pullback, in a buy the news & sell the event, after a huge runup post-announcement of the stock split. The stock entered a consolidation period, and didn’t have any big catalysts, especially with new iPhone lineup not being included in the Q4 results due to the late launch. The stock found some levels of resistance near the $120 levels that it struggled to get past but acted also as support after breaking them just before the recent news of the possible EV developments or self-driving-features to be licensed to other car manufacturers. After that news the stock spiked and has now reached the previous highs made before the stock split and is facing some resistance, if the stock pushes over $140 I think we can officially say that it broke the resistance at those levels and is not just a fake-out. But I think it’s likely that the stock will consolidate between 122 and 135$ in the next weeks until the next iPhone sales and quarterly results are released, as the stock has entered overbought territory again with an RSI over 70, the first time since the stock split.
So, what would I do? Well, I own Apple stock, and I really believe this company will remain the biggest or one of the biggest in the future, so I would really add on any weakness that the stock shows before the next quarter earnings are released, as typically Q1 earnings are the best for the company due to increased holiday sales combined with the launch of new products. I think any entry below 130$ would be really nice to start and build a position or increase it if you already own the stock. As I believe Apple is one of the most stable stocks out there with large institutional holders like Vanguard, BlackRock and Berkshire owning over 900M shares each.
Thank you everyone for reading! Hope you enjoyed the content! Be sure to leave a comment down below with your opinion on the stock market!
Have a great day and see you next time!

Should you buy Apple stock or has the company run out of growth opportunities? What is my price prediction for Apple in the next years? Read until the end as I reveal my price target for Apple and also what I think will happen in the next couple of days, weeks & months!
~ Warning! Very Very Long Post~
Hello everyone! So, let’s go over some of the latest news on Apple before moving on to some fundamental and technical analysis, predictions and my price target for the stock in the next years.
So, let’s start with the news that Apple will cut the App Store commission in half for small app developers starting in the next days, this will affect developers who earn less than $1M annually from the App Store Sales. This is likely to lead to a small decline in commission revenues for Apple as around 98% of the app developers will qualify for this tax reduction from 30% to 15%, but all these small developers only contribute to about 5% of the estimated $50B in annual revenues from the App Store, so that would be only a $1.25B loss for the company, that is less than half a % of the company’s total net sales in the last fiscal year.
Also, these changes may lead to a potential long-term revenue boost, as it is likely this will lead to an increasing creation of apps which will generate more commissions in return.
Alongside this we also saw the company releasing the new MacBook’s with their first in-house chip, which promises faster video and imaging processing times, with both CPU and GPU performance up to 2 times faster than the latest PC laptop chip using just a fraction of the power consumption, with both of the macbooks promising big improvements in battery life. Apple is also expected to roll out even more in-house chips in future products, as they have started the 2-year breakup with Intel chips.
We also saw Morgan Stanley upgrading their base case to $191 at the end of November, as they have cited record lead times, supply chain forecasts and carriers demand as they expect that the company will sell around 270M iPhone in fiscal year 2021, that’s 50M more than the consensus and almost 30M more than the previous estimate of Morgan Stanley, with an average selling price of 842$, 9% more than the base case, as people tend to chose the more expensive and high tech versions of the lineup in this new 5G cycle.
The 5G super-cycle, which I believe is on the way, and will continue in the next years, as 5G become more available worldwide, could still be the biggest thing coming right away for the company with 5G smartphones expected to surpass 4G sales by 2024, with the average sale price of the 5G phones also coming down, helping them become more popular. This will also be helped by the recent entry to the Indian market, as India will probably become the world biggest country in the next decade, this could be a huge opportunity for Apple to start and take away market-share from their competitors like Samsung and Xiaomi which have the biggest market shares right now.
They also released an update iPad Pro and an all-new iPad Air in September which will also boost sales in this work-from-home environment that will keep the demand very high for this kind of products, just like the Macs. Alongside the increasing demand from the Wearables, Home & Accessories that include Air Pods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and many more products.
But the biggest reasons I believe Apple is poised for continued growth, is primarily due to its services business, as they start to offer more and more services like the Apple ONE BUNDLE, which include up to 6 services from (Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, the new Apple Fitness+ and the iCloud service) for a pretty reasonable price in my opinion starting from 15$ up to 30$/month, this could be a great option for families and even individuals who use their services a lot.
The latest services, Fitness+ just launched in the past days, and is a direct competitor to the likes of Peloton, as the service is available on the iPhone, iPad or even Apple TV. This also makes consumers buy the Apple Watch which syncs to the other devices to show you different information. The Fitness+ app just on its own is 8$/month or 80$/year which is less expensive than Peloton subscription which charges 13$ or even traditional gyms like Planet Fitness at 10$/month.
I think this will be the fastest growing sector for the company, as this aligns with the new macro trends, as the world is moving more and more to a digital approach to almost everything as consumer preferences, with more & more younger people reaching the point in life when they use these services start to align to this increasing digital approach.
We also shouldn’t forget the Apple Card & Apple Pay service among many others which also seem to gain from the move to digital & contactless payments, as this has been accelerated due to the current situation in the past year.
And one last piece of news, and the most recent one, is that Apple may have fast-tracked the Titan project. The Titan project is targeting a 2024 or 2025 push to develop an electric vehicle with advanced battery technologies, that will deliver significant increases in range at much lower costs than the current technologies while also offering self-driving capabilities.
It’s reported they will not use the same technology as Tesla Full-Self-Driving feature, but will use LIDAR sensors, similar to those that we can find in the latest iPhone 12 PRO.
I think Apple can go 2 ways with this project, they can either use the huge amount of cash the company has to buy another car-maker like Ford, GM or any other car manufacturer expect Tesla and Toyota which do have a big market cap, so that they can fast-track the potential manufacturing of cars, or they can enter into a partnership with big companies like Tesla, Volkswagen or any other car marker to either produce cars or license their technology to this other car-makers which would ultimately and probably have higher margin-returns than the effective manufacturing of cars. Apple’s current overall gross margins stand at 38% vs the 15% average of the world top 10 automakers by market cap, which is significantly lower.
But this Apple Car thing is so far out, and there are so many unknowns, I will not try to predict anything related to this until there is more clarity on the subject.
And last, before moving on to some predictions, here are some of the highlights that we heard from the latest investors conference meeting, as the CEO, Tim Cook expressed optimism ahead with the launch of many new products and services, especially the Home Pod Mini and the new 5G iPhones, as these new iPhones include new LIDAR scanners that greatly improve the camera capabilities, as the iPhone as seen very positive reviews. We also saw the Senior VP and CFO, Luca Maestri give us great outlook for the company as they expect the installed devices base to continue to growth despite already being at an all-time high as they have over 585M paid subscriptions on their platforms and expect this to surpass 600M by the end of 2020.
I also researched and found what products we can see in the near future, with the first half of 2021 bringing new iMacs, the AirPods3 and the iPad Pro, while in the FALL event we will probably get the new iPhone 13 alongside the iPhone SE PLUS and the Watch Series 7 with more products coming later in 2021 or that don’t have an estimated release date like the Air Pods Pro, the Air Tags and the iPad Mini 6.
So, before even starting, you should know that I am bull on Apple but I am willing to hear other opinions so don’t be afraid to leave a comment down below.
I have made some predictions based on the growth rate of the company, the latest plans announced by them and used some estimates. So, keep in mind this are only projections and are calculated by myself, this is not an investment advice and you should do your own research.
This are my 2025 projections for Apple, let’s take a closer look at them, each on their own.
So, in term of revenues, Apple has 5 big sources of income, which saw an overall increase of 6% despite lagging sales in the iPhone. The biggest revenue is by far the iPhone right now with over $137B in revenue in the fiscal year ending in September. I expect to see the iPhone sales increasing in the next years, especially in 2021, with the new 5G iPhone creating a super-cycle for the company, as most iPhone users, including myself here, as I will upgrade from my iPhone X, will switch to this new product. The iPhone sales have decreased in the last couple of years by 14% and 3% as a result of the product not having big improvements, as well as iPhone usually starting to last longer than previous models, so I expect to see a 12% increase in sales next year and a gradual decrease in the growth of sales as more people upgrade, ending with just a 5% growth in iPhone sales in 2025.
The next revenues stream is from the Mac, which has seen an increase in the past 2years, with revenues topping $28B this year after the huge demand from the work from home consumers. I expect this trend to continue as they plan to continue to launch better products and I can see the company having a similar growth next year before starting to decline slightly until 2025, also ending with a 5% growth.
The iPad is currently the smallest revenue stream for Apple but has also seen an increase in demand in the past 2 years with a 13% average increase in revenues. I also expect the iPad to continue to grow in the next couple of years, especially with the learn-from-home environment for kids, and even after this period ends, the transformation for learning will implicate more digital usage. I expect the iPad to see some similar growth to the Macs, especially with the latest generation also bringing a new iPad air to the market.
The 4th revenue stream and the fastest growing in the past 2 years, with an average growth of 33% are the wearables, home & accessories revenues. This have topped $30B this year, as Apple has also just launched the Apple Watch series 6 and also feature other great products like Apple TV, the Air Pods the Home Pod and the Home Pod mini alongside other third-party accessories.
I gave this revenue stream a growth of 20% starting next year with a gradual decrease to around 8% by 2025, as I believe this will become more & more popular as they start to offer more vertical integration.
And last, but by no means least, the revenue stream that I expect to grow the most and the fastest is the revenue from the services that Apple offers. This includes revenues from Apple Care, Advertising, Cloud Services, Payment Services like Apple Card & Apple Pay and of course the digital content which includes fees from the App Store alongside subscription-based income including the new Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ alongside the already know Apple Arcade, Apple Music, Apple News+, Apple TV+ and hopefully I don’t forget any others.
So, I expect this to become the clear 2nd biggest revenue stream for Apple by 2025, as I expect this to grow more than 20% next year, mainly due to the Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ followed up by a slightly decreasing growth, ending with a 10% increase in revenues in 2025.
I think this are fairly conservative base case scenarios for the revenues, as I expect them to continue to increase the other revenue streams and not have such a large percentage of the revenues coming from the iPhone sales as you can see in this chart.
In terms of expenses, I pretty much kept the same margins as in previous years, with a 68% expense ratio on product sales [ iPhone / iPad / Mac / WHA ] and 35% expense ratio on SERVICES, as this are way more lucrative.
In the past 3 years, the products gross margin was 32.7%, so I actually imply bigger expenses for the manufacturing and sales of products, as this is mostly impacted by the company’s supplier’s ability to make up for and demand, while for the services revenue, the gross margins for the last 3 years has been 63.5% on average, but I expect this to be more in-line with the 66% margin in this past year. So, if services manage to grow to about half the revenues from the iPhone, this will effectively double the gross revenues, as every buck gained in the service revenues account for 2$ in the product sales.
So, I expect the total revenues for Apple to increase from $274B in 2020 to over $440B by 2025, increasing by approximately 10%/year, while I will keep the expense ratio pretty much in-line and have them increasing by 11%/year, this would bring the total gross income for Apple to $177B, increasing mainly due to the services revenues as I said earlier. This growth is just above the 4year average, and below the 2018 levels, which we might see again with this 5G super-cycle and explosive growth in the services revenue.
I also think the company will continue to invest in both Capital Expenditure and Operating expenses.
I think the operating expenses will remain pretty much in line with the previous years, as this number has increased by 1% annually both in R&D and SG&A. So, I will keep the exact percentages from previous years, as I expect the revenue to increase, thus I don’t see a big increase percentage wise. This would account for over $60B in operating expenses by 2025 and over $11B in Capital Expenditures by 2025, as I expect this to increase, mainly due to the possible EV developments or investments in self-driving capabilities alongside other manufacturing capabilities. You can see that the Capex spending has been decreasing in the past years with just over $8.8B in payments for business acquisitions and the other traditional Capex spending. Some people may use the cash generated by investing activities as Capex, but that is more unreliable. I also can see the Capex going back up, so I wanted to be safe and implied a 10% growth.
This money would account for over $73B in expenses and would bring the profit for the company to almost $104B before interest and taxes.
Moving on, let’s see what interest income and expenses the company has had in the past few years. We can see a decrease in interest expense in the past few years as the company has been paying off debt, but they have also been generating less money in this department, with an overall decrease in this department of more than 50% in the past year, way less than the amount from 2018. So, for safety reasons, I used a 10% decline in both income and expenses related to interest, while increasing the other losses by 10%/year.
This would bring the company pre-tax income to just over $104B in 2025.
Let’s move on to taxes. I know the Federal income tax rate is 21% for the company, but the actual effective tax rate for the company was lower than 15% in the past year, mainly due to lower tax-rates on foreign earnings alongside tax-benefits and tax-settlements. The average effective tax rate has been just over 16% in the past 3 years, but with more and more of the revenues coming from outside the US, I think it’s safe to say that the company will have around a 15% effective tax rate by 2025, this obviously if nothing major changes in tax policy around the world.
So, Apple would have $88.6B in income after tax by 2025 and with the current outstanding shares standing at just under 17B, so I don’t even account for the company probably continuing to do share buybacks, this would mean a $5.22 future earnings/share. And with today’s price for Apple just around 136$, that would mean to company is trading at just over 26 times forward price to earnings.
I don’t think Apple will ever trade at a discount again, with the current PE standing at over 40, I believe this will eventually go down, probably to around 35, despite the increase in services revenue, which is highly valued by investors. I think we can see Apple trade somewhere near 35 times P/E in 2025, especially if something big happens with the EV project, this could be even higher, just look at Tesla which trades at insane P/E. Of course, we also have to take into consideration the dividends that will be received from owning the stock, as Apple has started to pay dividends almost a decade ago and has 9 years of dividend growth, with a 10% annual rate of growth in the past 5 years. Here is the dividend growth history for the company, as I also went conservative on this estimate and implied a 7% growth for the next 2 years, 6% for 2023 and 2024 and just 5% in 2025.
So here are my 3 price targets for the company, including dividends but not reinvested. My bear case scenario is that Apple will trade at almost 165$ which implies a return of over 21% by 2025, while my base case scenario would see Apple trading at 195$ with a return of capital of 43%. I will also make the bull case for Apple trading at 225$ by 2025 with dividends included, which would imply just over 65% in gains by then.
I think this is possible as Apple has also continued to buy back shares of the company on a constant basis, as they continue to an impressive campaign with over $72B worth of common stock repurchased in 2020. They continue to buy back shares at a very fast pace, having repurchased over 1.3B shares in 2019 and 2018, while also issuing less stock every year.
So here is the full spreadsheet that I have projected for Apple by 2025 and the breakdown of everything i estimated [ 1 / 2 ] , if you do have another opinion or a suggestion please leave a comment down below, I think I have been conservative in most of my projections, but feel free to give your opinion.
Keep in mind, these targets might sound ridiculous, but just look at the growth Apple has had in the last 5years. The company has increased in value by more 400% in just the past 5years and is over 100.000% up since it started trading. So yes, the valuation is mad right now for the company. So, are you willing to bet against Apple?
The company also has pristine financials, with more than $65B in total assets compared to total liabilities, and more than $38B in cash and cash equivalents.
So, what do I expect in the next couple of days, weeks and months for Apple?
Let’s look at this CHART, so starting with the stock split, Apple saw a correction within the September stock market pullback, in a buy the news & sell the event, after a huge runup post-announcement of the stock split. The stock entered a consolidation period, and didn’t have any big catalysts, especially with new iPhone lineup not being included in the Q4 results due to the late launch. The stock found some levels of resistance near the $120 levels that it struggled to get past but acted also as support after breaking them just before the recent news of the possible EV developments or self-driving-features to be licensed to other car manufacturers. After that news the stock spiked and has now reached the previous highs made before the stock split and is facing some resistance, if the stock pushes over $140 I think we can officially say that it broke the resistance at those levels and is not just a fake-out. But I think it’s likely that the stock will consolidate between 122 and 135$ in the next weeks until the next iPhone sales and quarterly results are released, as the stock has entered overbought territory again with an RSI over 70, the first time since the stock split.
So, what would I do? Well, I own Apple stock, and I really believe this company will remain the biggest or one of the biggest in the future, so I would really add on any weakness that the stock shows before the next quarter earnings are released, as typically Q1 earnings are the best for the company due to increased holiday sales combined with the launch of new products. I think any entry below 130$ would be really nice to start and build a position or increase it if you already own the stock. As I believe Apple is one of the most stable stocks out there with large institutional holders like Vanguard, BlackRock and Berkshire owning over 900M shares each.
Thank you everyone for reading! Hope you enjoyed the content! Be sure to leave a comment down below with your opinion on the stock market!
Have a great day and see you next time!

So, this happened last Saturday but due to work and a few other commitments I haven’t been able to post until now. As usual, I typed way too much than was needed so TL;DR at bottom.
I woke up Saturday morning in a really good mood, the sun was shining, my dog was cuddling me, and I had a date planned with an awesome woman I’d been flirting with for a couple months. As 2021 has already proven, though, good things were not meant to be. After getting ready and waiting for our meet up time, I headed out to find that I’d been stood up. It sucks, but in hindsight I probably should’ve expected it for reasons I won’t get into here, but are valid and while I’m still annoyed I didn’t at least get a cancellation text, I don’t hold any ill will and we’re still on friendly terms. The day was slightly saved, however, by a friend who knows that I’ve always loved the ocean and have always wanted a marine/saltwater aquarium. They sent me a link to a good deal on a used tank big enough for some smaller ocean fish, $100 for a 75 gallon tank which is an absolute steal, so I was extremely excited.
I needed to patch a leak or two along a corner, but after doing so and testing it I was confident it was functional again and headed to the fish store to start getting things needed to set up my tank. Now, for those that don’t know, it takes quite a while and a lot of time and work to get a saltwater tank ready before you can even think about putting fish in there, to include treating the water to remove chemicals, then treating to remove chemicals that removing chemicals produces, getting the right ph balance, the precise salt content (precise enough that it’s measured to the thousandths of a decimal), and finally adding “live” sand and rocks (meaning they have bacteria living in or on them that will help the nitrogen cycle of the tank and other things I’m not smart enough to fully understand). Oh, and a heater so it stays the right temperature. Now, I tell you all of this not to bore you with details or because I think internet strangers are interested in my dating life (or, more honestly, lack thereof), but so you can understand the mindset I had going into the store. I was annoyed, a bit angry because at the time I only knew I’d been stood up and didn’t know the reason, and more than a little overwhelmed at the task I had set out to do. In short, while I’m generally an easygoing guy who tries to let things slide, this particular Saturday I wasn’t really in the mood to be fucked with, as the kids say (or at least I think they do). Ok, anyway, lengthy backstory I’m sure I’ll get plenty of complaints about out of the way, on to the story you came here for.
I arrived at the local fish store and before asking for help decided to browse a bit. Important to note, this fish store also happens to have reptiles for sale as well, and a side shop of exotic pets like lemurs, parrots, and other smaller creatures that are not for sale but people can pay to feed, take pictures with, etc. Its also a family owned shop and is known for having really nice and super helpful employees, but that’s just a bonus detail. Anyway, while looking around a few kids were asking their mom what kind of fish some were, who didn’t know so I volunteered the information to them. This led to an older gentleman asking me for some help with some fish, but after learning I didn’t work there he went about his way, no big deal. Then the chime of someone entering the store sounded, followed by the pitter-patter of little feet moving way too fast to be around so much glass, and the sigh of an exasperated woman can be heard, you know that sound that makes the Karen alarms go off in your head? Or the ones that make decently behaved kids think “wow, maybe I pushed mom too far this time.” Yeah, that one. I hear an employee asking the kid not to run, but lose interest and go back to browsing. Also important to the story and another reason the kid shouldn’t be running, you know those big koi ponds in the ground some places have? They have one here, with a small wooden bridge going over it separating the shop from the fish storage.
I finally get around to asking for some help and advice on the best way to plan my tank set up as I have to do it little by little because bad financial decisions, such as prioritizing the need to eat and have healthcare over having a savings account, means that I will have to do the set up piece by piece. I’m fine with this, nothing worth having comes easy, or so they say, but I’m worried that this might mean I have to change some things about how I approach the tank build. While speaking with him, I do notice the mother I spoke to earlier (with the nice kids) point in our direction to the Karen of today’s subject. She walks up to us as the employee is explaining how to use a hydrometer (the device that measures the salinity of water, or I think more accurately the “gravity” of the water? Whatever that means) and says “You, my kid wants to see your reptiles, he’s back there waiting but I won’t get anywhere near those things.” No excuse me, no apology for interrupting, hell she didn’t even wait for a reply, she just spoke over the employee and turned to walk towards the fish tanks holding the bigger fish.
At this, the employee gives me a look of shared annoyance, shrugs, and continues explaining to me. I guess the Karen made a round because she eventually came back and saw we hadn’t moved and looked pretty mad and looked right at me, “Excuse me, (yes, she did actually say it this time) I believe I told you my son needs help. You can finish talking to your friend after you’ve done your job.” At this, the employee starts with “Ma’am...” but trails off as my I guess I needed to relieve some tension and replied “Lady, I don’t work here and you’d probably get more help if you tried showing some decency to people.” Admittedly, even as I said it, I knew I was only going to make things worse, and for what it’s worth a small part of me did feel bad for poking a bear I knew would be other people’s problem, but it just slipped through my filter and I wasn’t going to back down now.
Predictably, this set her off. She started going on about how it was her kid’s birthday was today and since “this damn hoax is still going on” (yet she was wearing a mask so I’m not sure what she really believes) she couldn’t take him to a proper zoo like he wanted so they “had to settle for this shitshow.” It’s a fairly small store, so the ownemanager showed up around this time, cutting her off and asking her to calm down, explaining that I don’t work there, and somehow wrangling her over to the counter where she could pay for her son to feed/hold some of the animals. Surprisingly, instead of doubling down, she actually seemed to believe the owner when he said I didn’t work there, not that I got an apology or anything.
After this, I thank the employee and let him head to the back to hide from this psycho and I turn my attention to the reptile room to check out the lizards and turtles (unrelated but I absolutely love turtles and tortoises). Unbeknownst to myself, the employee, or apparently even the Karen, there was already an employee helping her kid who I guess learned it was his birthday (he had some balloon they give to kids saying happy birthday with the store logo), and was letting him hold some of the animals before his mother paid, or thinking she had already paid, or something, I guess it’s not important. What is important, however, is a noise slowly rising in volume coming from the store section. A noise that sounds suspiciously like a Karen berating an employee (or in this case owner) undeservedly. I look to the employee helping the kid to give her a warning look, and see that she has handed this kid a snake to hold, good sized too. Nothing huge, maybe 4ish feet long, looked to be about the same size as the kid, sorry, I’m not knowledgeable on snakes enough to know what kind it was. The kid sees me looking at the employee and I guess thinks I was looking at him holding the snake and brings it up so I can see it better.
Kid: “isn’t it cool?!?! I love snakes!”
Me: “yeah! Do you have any?”
Now, readers, I feel at this point it’s important for me to say that I was genuinely just trying to be nice to the kid and had no malicious intent at all, truly. It was his next sentence that sparked my plan.
Kid: “No, my mom won’t let me have any, I think she’s scared of them.”
Ok, now I know that I was wrong for what I said next, and I’m probably even as asshole for getting his hopes up, but it please remember that in the background of all of this is his mother yelling about not paying so much money and how they should be paying her kid for feeding the animals since “he’s doing their job”. I just... I couldn’t help it, if you ever read this, kid, I’m sorry for getting your hopes up, and for possibly getting you in trouble.
Me: “Well, it’s your birthday isn’t it? Happy birthday! You should go show that snake to your mom and ask her for one for today! I bet she’d let you have one if it’s for your birthday!”
Kid: “Really?! That’s a great idea!”
Me: “Yeah! Run and let her hold it!”
Yep... I hear it now. I’m definitely an asshole. Sorry again, kid.
Anyway, the kid takes off, with the employee yelling after him that he can’t take the snake out of the room and trying to chase him, but I signal for her to stop and tell her to let it slide this once, and I know I said it with a pretty mischievous smile, so maybe she thought it’d be funny too, or maybe she heard what was going on in the other room, idk, but she stopped and watched with me and, oh, was it glorious.
The kid runs full tilt towards his mom, snake outstretched to her, yelling “mom, look!!” over and over. Her yelling at the owner didn’t even seem to phase the kid. She looks over mid-rant and sees her kid running at her with this huge snake and loses. her. shit. Her yelling turns into a scream of terror and she turns the other way to run away from her kid and his newfound scaly friend, but remember that koi pond I mentioned earlier? Remember how it has the bridge going over it to cross into the fish room? Yeah, she missed the bridge.
SPLASH!!! She goes face first into the pond, purse and phone and all, fish immediately scattering everywhere in fear, but some coming back to investigate the splashing water just as fast as they’d ran. It was amazing. She was thrashing around trying to grab a handhold (I think the pond was only like 4 feet deep or something, she probably could’ve just stood up), screaming the entire time because she was now surrounded by harmless, curious koi, which seemed to be a completely new hell for her.
Anyway, after getting out and yelling at her kid to put the snake down, and yelling at the owner about suing them for all they’re worth, and just yelling in general, a very wet Karen and her kid left the store, and it was a little bit quieter, but not much, we were all almost crying from laughter. Not much happened after that, though after learning it was my plan I did get 2lbs of live rocks for free (~$11) so I was happy, and went home to start working on setting up my tank. Now I know I was an asshole to use her kid against her like that, and I do feel bad for the kid, but honestly, I’d probably do the same thing again given the chance. I visited the store on Tuesday again and they said they hadn’t heard anything from Karen, so they’re probably in the clear, not that I think she’d have any grounds to sue on? Idk, I’m definitely not a lawyer. Anyway, thanks for reading of you made it this far!
TL;DR: Karen visits fish and reptile store, Karen yells at me, twice, Karen yells at owner, Karen’s kid has snake, Karen is afraid of snake, I talk kid into showing the snake to his mom, Karen runs straight into a koi pond.

This video attempts to explain why one should believe the things the christian bible says, specifically because:

it's a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses, during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies, and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.

THESIS: The arguments and evidence presented in the video completely fail to support the above position.
It's a huge post: feel free to only tackle a specific section or 2, I think they're mostly self-contained.
In some cases I say that I suspect the speaker of being dishonest. If you don't like that, just know that he straight up calls people "ignorant, or evil, or both" [34:07] and "fools" [56:03] (stated as a fact, not merely his opinion) for using specific arguments or not accepting his conclusion. I think he opened up the Pandora's Box of guessing others' intent and so I've done it as well, though I've tried to be as responsible as possible. If you think I've been unfair, please let me know why.
TL;DR and conclusion next, for your convenience...

TL;DR & Conclusion

The speaker first presents the question: "why the bible?" (I've tried to phrase this more rigorously as: "why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?") The speaker then presents his answer, and dissects it to address and support each claim within it.
However, his methodology for investigating the question actually rests on the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible" (in his own words, 12:35-ish). This is a direct answer to the question he's investigating, and therefore any answer which rests on this premise is circular. I demonstrate that important portions of the speaker's argument do seem to rest on this premise and other lines of fallacious reasoning, and so his answer seems to be based on invalid reasoning and should not be trusted.
The speaker also fails to present compelling evidence for any of the claims which make up his answer, and often relies on fallacious arguments. His arguments include:

• Questionable interpretations of biblical passages: citing passages widely believed to be forgeries as if they are eyewitness testimony, and reading "between the lines" and other forms of motivated interpretation
• Unsound interpretations of the history of the bible: preferring a "very early" authorship of New Testament books, against the consensus of modern scholars and without giving any justification; and citing absence of evidence as evidence of absence (argument from silence), in a case where the old adage actually holds true
• Errors in analyzing probabilities: preferring less likely explanations over more likely ones, or not applying Occam's Razor where it would help
• Straw men, an appeal to consequences, an argument from popularity, affirming the consequent, and other fallacious arguments

Even ignoring the circularity of his methodology, the speaker fails to come close to proving his point. That's not to say he's wrong: the bible could be an authoritative source of information about the Universe, and he's just failed to piece together a valid argument which supports that position. I don't think that's the case (and I've done just a bit to rebut that position), but it's possible. However, after viewing this video and considering all the poor arguments it presents, I still think it's far more likely that christianity and its bible originated entirely due to mundane natural events, maybe akin to what's proposed here.
In my own experience, however flawed the arguments presented in this video are, I've seen them used a lot. I hope that some readers might see how to debunk an argument they consider sound, so that those folks can reconsider their position and build stronger arguments in the future.

Video Overview

First off, this video attempts to answer the question "why the bible?" In the context of the video it's pretty clear what he means, but it's vague out of context, so I'll rephrase it more rigorously:
"Why should anybody consider the bible authoritative on the truth of the Universe?"
For the most part the video is a systematic dissection of the speaker's position.

The "Egregious Flaw" in Methodology

At [12:35] the speaker says the following, to rebut the objection that 'proving the bible using the bible constitutes circular reasoning'. He's trying to get in front of this objection because most of his reasoning is, in fact, an attempt to prove the bible using the bible.

The question is "why I choose to believe the bible". ... The answer to that question for me resides in the bible itself. Now why would I appeal to the bible in this way? Because there is no higher authority than the bible. See, if I were to appeal to another authority, then I would be conceding that there is a higher authority than the bible. So this might be a problem in any other area, and any other field -- however, I'm making the argument that this is the higher authority, and therefore by definition I cannot appeal to another authority.

He asks the question "why do I consider the bible authoritative?", and he investigates it under the premise that "there is no higher authority than the bible". The main premise underlying his entire investigation is a direct answer to the question he's investigating: this is the definition of circular reasoning.
​
But doesn't he make a good point? Wouldn't any other premise corrupt his investigation and bar him from reaching the conclusion that "there is no higher authority than the bible"?
No, that's ridiculous, and here's why...
For one thing, when the speaker says that his question is different from any other question in any other field, and yet fails to give a sufficient explanation for how it's different -- that's special pleading. Sure, maybe it's impossible to investigate whether any given thing is the ultimate authority. But even if that's the case, it doesn't make circular arguments valid.
Including an answer as a premise forces one to interpret all the evidence in a manner consistent with the premise, or to only consider evidence that's consistent with the premise -- which of course forces the investigation to reach the conclusion stated in the premise. That's what a premise is: a foundational assumption which guides all subsequent reasoning. It is not constraining in any way to assume that a thing might not be authoritative, in order to investigate whether or not it is authoritative -- it's the only honest way to investigate any question.
The speaker should be more than willing to assume that he might be wrong, and then undertake a fair investigation from there. If he's right and the bible is the ultimate authority on the Universe, then he can only demonstrate that by comparing it to extrabiblical reality. And again, if he's right, everything in the Universe should agree with the bible -- and even the nay-sayers ought to accept that as proof!
Why is he unwilling to strike the killing blow to his opponents' arguments, if he's certain that he's right?
​
In the following sections I'll show how this circular reasoning appears to lead the speaker back to his assumed conclusion.

The Speaker's Answer

Presented at 11:05: see very top for quote.
I'll address it claim by claim, as done by the speaker...

Claim 1: "... it's a reliable collection of historical documents ..."

At 15:08, the speaker cites the following as evidence in for this claim:

• The bible was written on 3 different continents
• In 3 different languages
• By over 40 authors from multiple walks of life: kings, generals, fishermen, tax collectors, doctors, historians
• In 66 volumes, covering hundreds of subjects
• Over more than 1500 years

So what? In all these ways it's similar to the Hindu scriptures, but does the speaker give any credence to those? Though he does mention other religious texts [3:57] and even presents them as alternatives to the bible, he doesn't discuss these so-called "strengths" of the Hindu scriptures (or any others) in his lecture: I think either he's unaware of them, or his premise -- that the christian bible is the highest authority -- has caused him to exclude Hindu and other scriptures from his investigation, because analyzing them the same way he analyzed the bible would cast doubt on his assumed conclusion. So, "why the bible?" when the Hindu scriptures and perhaps others are so similar in the ways the speaker cares about? Who knows? He didn't address it, though he should have.
But even if there were nothing remotely comparable to the bible in these ways -- why should it matter? Does the number of languages used to compose something somehow affect is authority? For that matter, does composing one work on the corner of 3 continents somehow make it more authoritative than another one composed on the edge of the Indian subcontinent, or in the middle of North America? And why should we care how many people wrote it, or their backgrounds, or how many separate books it's composed of, or how long it took to write?
I know what he's getting at: he's trying to say, "how could this many people, over such a long time, across such large swathes of multiple societies, all be wrong in the same way?" Well, that's a fallacy called 'argumentum ad populum', an argument from popularity. Just because a bunch of people believe something, that doesn't make it true, or even likely to be true. All the bible authors were Jews and early christians living in Eastern Mediterranean societies; they were well aware of earlier Jewish oral and written traditions, and likely tried to constrain their work to enhance rather than refute the existing traditions; and the works which weren't popular or didn't agree with existing traditions were not included as canon! The bible's internal consistency (such as it is) doesn't indicate that its contents are true -- it indicates that its authors prioritized internal consistency.
The speaker has made an argumentum ad populum, derived from evidence heavily affected by sample selection bias and observer bias. It's a terrible argument, built on terrible evidence. After a bit of thought, anybody who isn't operating under the speaker's circular premise should be able to see the problems with this argument.
​
At 17:40, the speaker seems to claim that the author of Luke was a historian, and that we should trust them at their word when they make claims, because as a historian they researched the claims before publishing them:

Luke was not an eyewitness -- he doesn't claim to be an eyewitness. He's a historian who claims to have traced the information from the eyewitnesses. ... The fact that this man was not an eyewitness, but collected information from individuals who were eyewitnesses [...], and has followed everything closely for some time past, and he wanted to write an orderly account. ... Luke's goal is history and chronology.

Well, Luke probably wasn't a historian in any modern sense of the word, so "history and chronology" in any modern sense probably weren't his real goal. Modern historical research didn't really happen in ancient times, so I'm reluctant to accept that when the author of Luke says he has "followed all things closely for some time past", he actually means he's found enough objective evidence to support the claims he's heard. It's not what he explicitly says, and that was not the common practice at the time, so I find it hard to believe that's what he meant.
Also, I don't think Luke 1:1-4 (cited by the speaker) implies that Luke tried at all to investigate the claims he received from others. Instead, this passage can easily mean that the author of Luke was told some stuff by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses, and he's just writing those things down because he believes them based on the story alone. It's not even clear that the author talked to the eyewitnesses -- he could have just talked to the "ministers" in verse 2, who told him they got it from eyewitnesses.
The Lucan author could be recounting pure hearsay, 100 retellings deep, as if it's fact -- or he could have gone to the ends of the Earth to verify what he heard. But he doesn't describe his sources or methods, so we don't know, and it's hazardous to guess... Yet the speaker hazards a guess, and tries to pass off that guess as truth. In this case, I think he's forcing his interpretation of the passage to match his assumed conclusion, and to do so he's made a lot of seemingly unwarranted assumptions.
​
Then at 27:47 the speaker says this:

"There have been more than 25,000 archaeological digs related directly to the subject matter of the bible. ... Not one of them has contradicted anything that we have in the bible, and the overwhelming majority of them have confirmed and affirmed the things that we find in the bible."

First off, I don't accept this claim at face value -- I'd like to see some citations, but the speaker doesn't give any. Also, biblical claims like the Genesis flood have been thoroughly debunked (though I think archaeology only played a small part). I bet a lot of archaeology has proved parts of the bible wrong, and Wiki seems to agree with me so I think I'm right to doubt the speaker's claim. But that's irrelevant to the point I'm going to make, so I'll move on...
I accept that some places and events in the bible are factual. That's no problem. These were people writing about their society and their time, so it would be ridiculous if nothing in the bible were factual. But the fact that it contains some facts does not imply that all its contents are facts.
"My name is Andrew Joslin. I live in the United States. I have black hair. I love cats."
Those 4 statements are internally consistent, and 3 of them are true -- so does that mean they all are? No. One of them is false.
In just the same manner, some things in the bible can be true, and verified by archaeology and science, while other things in the bible might be false. Just because we verified the Babylonian Captivity with reasonable certainty (Jer 52), that doesn't at all support the claim that a deity had anything to do with it (Jer 52:2-3).

Claim 2: "... written by eyewitnesses ..."

First off, from 19:31 - 20:50, the speaker very strongly implies that he thinks the traditional authors -- the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, John -- are the real authors of the 4 gospels. Over and over he says "Matthew is writing...", "his favorite words are...", "that's why we have his gospel written the way it's written", and other phrases which make it very unlikely that he is personifying the books, and far more likely that he is talking about the authors themselves and believes they are the same as the tradition says. But those authors are merely the church tradition, and this tradition is very much doubted by modern scholars.
Additionally, multiple times in the video [13:54, 40:30] he cites 2 Peter as if it's authoritative on what Peter experienced and thought. But modern scholars believe this book to be a forgery and not written by Peter, so I don't know why anybody would consider 2 Peter authoritative on what Peter experienced or thought. If 2 Peter is a forgery then the reference at 51:20 is also problematic, because I suspect that a person who forges a book by Peter may also be so bold as to claim that all scripture is divine in origin, as an attempt to give more credence to their own forgery.
All this makes me wonder how much the speaker actually knows about how the bible was written -- and if he does know what modern scholarship says about these things, I wonder whether he might just be throwing out the modern scholarly consensus in favor of his personal, pet beliefs (his premise that the bible is the ultimate authority). Neither is a good option, and either way you cut it this lowers my trust in the speaker.
​
Finally, at 21:20 the speaker claims that John was an eyewitness to... something. He cites John 1:1-3 to support this:

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Okay, the author clearly says that he has both seen and heard certain, unnamed things, which have apparently convinced him of the truth of the message he is about to relay in the rest of his gospel.
I grant that the author is saying he "saw and heard" things -- but what? It seems like poetic language, and it doesn't make any distinction between the things the author has personally seen, and what he has heard second- or third- or nth-hand from others. True, the author may have personally experienced some stuff as an eyewitness, but it's unclear from these verses what that stuff was, and how much of the remainder of this gospel is hearsay versus eyewitness testimony. I'm not even sure that the author of John ever claims to have seen Jesus -- perhaps the rest of John proves me wrong, but from this passage it's entirely possible that the things the author experienced firsthand were more akin to what modern parishioners experience in church, than to personally witnessing the things Jesus said and did. People today say they are convinced by their own experiences without ever having seen Jesus in the flesh, so perhaps that's what the author of John is saying in this passage.
But even if the gospel of John were eyewitness testimony, that's still not great... Wiki says that "most scholars believe that John reached its final form around AD 90–110", so this would be eyewitness testimony that is, per most scholars, at least 57 years old at the time it was written down. We know for a fact that eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. This study demonstrated the unreliability of eyewitness testimony for a somewhat mundane event. These are known cases where mistaken or perjured eyewitness testimony resulted in a wrongful conviction and death row sentence, and here's a study which indicates that high stress negatively impacts the quality of eyewitness testimony (specifically, it affects the eyewitness's ability to accurately recall the events).
If a crucifixion of a man named Jesus or Jeshua did indeed happen, then eyewitnesses to that event might have had some difficulty accurately retelling what they saw, even the first time they retold the story. This could be compounded with the eyewitnesses having heard rumors that he was a prophet, which might render their interpretation of what they saw vulnerable to suggestion. The long time period between the writing of this gospel and the events it describes is also problematic, because during that time it was passed on as an oral tradition, and continued retelling as a shared oral tradition can cause the recalled experiences to degrade in accuracy and become poisoned by later changes. That's how memory recall works: it's subject to errors and changes each time we do it. It happens to everybody, and to individuals as well as groups. It's not necessarily lying: errors can and do accumulate very quickly despite people's best intentions to be truthful.
So from the passages presented by the speaker, it's far from a certainty that the author of John was an eyewitness to the events described in the gospel of John. And even if he were, eyewitness testimony is extremely problematic, and frankly I'd consider it more likely that this eyewitness testimony has been corrupted by the factors described above, than the purported supernatural events in the story actually happened as described. Maybe there's more evidence to be found in John, but I find the speaker's use of this passage alone insufficient to support his argument: to call this evidence is wishful thinking or motivated interpretation at best.

Claim 3: "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..."

At 23:22, in support of this claim the speaker says there's a huge problem "dating the problem late". I don't know what problem he's referring to, because he didn't explain it as far as I could tell. He then cites 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 as support for "... during the lifetime of other witnesses ..." -- however, in those verses Paul explicitly says that he's recounting a story he's been told. I've heard some speculation as to whether this may be some type of early christian creed, in which case it would have been meant as a statement of faith, rather than a discussion of facts in evidence (I find this plausible, but I can't back it up with evidence so I'm treating it as mere speculation).
But all speculation aside, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 Paul literally admits that he is not personally attesting to the veracity of what he's saying: he's repeating something he was told. Obviously he is personally attesting his own experience in verse 8, but all the rest is stuff that he was told and cannot attest to personally.
So Paul was told that "the 500" and a bunch of other people witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and that most of them are still alive. Therefore, when the speaker later [24:22] says this:

"If you do the math, there are at least 301 eyewitness to the resurrection who are alive when 1 Corinthians was written.

... I don't think the speaker has any justification to reach this conclusion. Even if Paul believed it was true, does that mean we should believe it? Again, Paul need not be lying here, nor do his sources need to be lying, in order for this passage to be a falsehood. Everybody in the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul could be doing their best to report the events accurately, and they could still have gotten it wrong.
Not knowing how long the chain from the eyewitness(es) to Paul actually was, again I'd say it's far less likely that the events described in the story are true, than that the message Paul delivers here was corrupted by false memories and erroneous retellings -- or even outright lies or exaggeration*** -- and therefore false. (***We don't know the pedigree of the story before it reached Paul, so we can't say that every middle-man retelling of it was honest. Even if you would die defending Paul's honesty, that still says nothing for all the people in the chain that passed this information to him.)
​
The speaker uses these verses again at 29:06, where he says this:

But what we find here in this text is, again, over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when 1 Corinthians was written. Why is this important? This is important because that means that the gospel message, that the message of the bible, is falsifiable. ... When you're testing the veracity of a claim, if somebody's making a claim and that claim can't be falsified, that means you can't test the claim. Not a very strong claim, if you can't test the claim -- that means I just gotta trust you, because there's nothing I can do to falsify your claim, I just gotta trust you. This claim is falsifiable. When Paul wrote it, it was a falsifiable claim, and yet it was never falsified. That's a piece of evidence that has to be weighed.

First off, even if the claim was falsifiable at the time it was made, it's not falsifiable now, and now is when we are being asked to believe the claim. People of Paul's time may have been able to interrogate these supposed eyewitnesses, but we can't -- and we can't even be sure they ever existed -- so their testimony can't falsify Paul's account for us. It's unfortunate that the evidence we need to falsify Paul's claims may be lost to time -- but that doesn't mean we should believe what he says, and as far as we can tell it actually renders his claims unfalsifiable to us. Per the speaker's own logic, this is a good reason to doubt what Paul says.
Second, as explained above, I don't accept that there were "over 301 eyewitnesses to the resurrection" still alive in time to read 1 Corinthians. Even if there were living eyewitnesses at that time, the following problems must be overcome before claiming this as evidence:

• Maybe 1 Corinthians wasn't published anywhere these eyewitnesses could have seen it, in time for them to falsify it. It's a letter to the church of Corinth (far from Judea, where we'd expect most eyewitnesses to remain), written in a language foreign to them (Greek), at a time when few people could read
• Maybe eyewitnesses saw it and didn't falsify it because it matched their (incorrect) understanding of what happened. It is possible for everybody to be wrong in roughly the same ways, that's how witness collusion and legends work
• Maybe eyewitnesses saw it and did falsify it -- but one of the following happened:
  • They chose to leave the area instead of risking voicing their objections to a popular belief
  • Their objections were overshadowed by the louder and more numerous voices which ended up informing the books of the bible
  • They voiced their objections verbally and never wrote them down
  • Their written objections were lost over the centuries (including the purposeful destruction of "heretical" texts by the church, rulers, and individuals)
  • We just haven't found the document yet

All of the above are perfectly reasonable explanations for why we don't have a specific, ancient document in our hands.
Also, for what it's worth, I'd like to mention that here the speaker is literally using absence of evidence as evidence of absence: this is an argument from silence, and it's fallacious here because it affirms the consequent by completely ignoring other very plausible explanations. Arguments from silence are perfectly fine when the absence of the thing necessarily implies the falsehood of the claim: for example, the claim "I have a green horn sticking out of my forehead" is falsified by the absence of a green horn sticking out of my forehead. Arguments from silence also be okay evidence (though not very conclusive) when there are good reasons to believe that if the claim were true we should likely have the evidence we lack. But here it is a no-no because what we know about the production, preservation, etc., of ancient documents gives us the most likely explanation for why we don't have the evidence.
So yeah, that's a horribly fallacious argument... And this one's obvious enough, and the speaker seems intelligent enough, that I'm going to just say it: of all the arguments the speaker makes, this is the one that most makes me suspect dishonesty. Maybe he's chosen to present this paper tiger in place of a good argument because he knows he has nothing better. It makes me suspect he's consciously chosen not to investigate his question, but instead seeks to prove his foregone conclusion by any means necessary.
Not that he's outright lying -- I think he really does believe his foregone conclusion. But I think he hasn't set out to honestly investigate it, and this awful argument is, in my opinion, a direct result of that flaw in his methodology.
​
At 30:44 the speaker states that the NT was written "very early", which I guess is supposed to support the "by eyewitnesses, in the lifetime of other eyewitnesses" prong of his answer. Yet he gives no evidence for this "very early" claim. I think these are the points where he tries to support the argument, but both seem to be non sequiturs (fallacies):

• At 31:30 the speaker argues against a straw man of the popular "telephone game" argument
  • It's a straw man because the telephone game argument is a description of how both transcription and translation errors accumulate in hand-copied texts over time -- however, the speaker presents it as if everybody who ever translated the bible had the same source material to translate or transcribe from. That's simply not true. It's been proven that differences exist in the earliest known copies of every book of the bible, and these differences grew over time. Medieval scribes didn't have the originals to copy or translate from: they were working from copies of copies of copies, etc. Indeed, Bart Ehrman says that the earliest scribes tended to make more errors than the later ones.
  • It's a non sequitur, because it was brought up in the context of trying to prove that the NT was authored "very early", and it actually has nothing to do with that, so it's probably a relevance fallacy of some type. The "telephone game" argument explains how copies of copies become less and less true to the originals. It does not comment on the date of the originals, yet that's what the speaker is trying to prove here.
• At 34:54 the speaker claims that we have over 6000 manuscripts or fragments of the NT, which is more than we have for other ancient texts of similar age
  • This is a non sequitur for a number of reasons, at least one of them a relevance fallacy. First, the books cited by the speaker are generally quite a bit older than the books of the NT -- by many hundreds of years, in some cases. Second, the number of fragments has nothing to do with when the books were written, which is the point the speaker is trying to prove.

I feel that these two arguments actually distract the audience rather than supporting the speaker's claim. I don't know whether this was his intent, or a mistake, or I'm just being dumb -- mainly because I have no idea how he thinks these points support his claim. At the very least they distracted me, and after re-watching them multiple times I still couldn't make any better sense of these arguments than as non sequiturs based on straw men.
If you think he's supported his "very early" NT authorship claim at all with these points, then please let me know how.
​
But regardless of my poor understanding of this section of the video, or the speaker's lack of evidence, or whatever happened here, I don't think it even matters. Even if the NT books were written "very early", it would not mean that the lack of contemporaneous objections to the NT's claims constitutes evidence in favor of the NT's claims. Again, arguments from silence are not appropriate here, and I really do suspect that the speaker is being intellectually dishonest here, as discussed toward the beginning of this section.

Claim 4: "They report supernatural events that took place ..."

At 40:30 the speaker cites 2 Peter in support of this claim. Aside from the problems I already mentioned with 2 Peter, and how (in my opinion) the speaker's usage of that book diminishes his credibility --
Why would it matter that the authors claim that supernatural events happened? Should we just... believe them? It's one thing to say "I saw X". It's another entirely to say "I saw X, and I know that Y caused it". The first is a statement of one's own experience, whereas the second is an experience plus an inference. Why should we believe that these peoples' inferences about the supernatural are reliable, and that the reported events (assuming they actually occurred) were actually supernatural?
Note that my objection isn't based on demeaning ancient peoples. I don't think this problem really gets any easier with more knowledge. Inferences about the supernatural should always be treated as speculation, until and unless we find some way to objectively investigate the supernatural. We don't have a way to do that now, so we should not believe the claims (yet).
More support for this claim is given at 41:33, but it suffers from the same problem.
The speaker should be treating these claims as what they are -- claims, which need to be substantiated before anybody should believe them. He's not doing that. I don't know if he just doesn't suspect that they could be wrong, or if he's turning a blind eye to a problem he's aware of. Either way, it's just very unsatisfying, and consciously or not I wonder whether his circular premise "there is no higher authority than the bible" has crept into this part of his analysis, too.

Claim 5: "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..."

The speaker supports this argument with Isaiah 53 at 43:02, and with Psalm 22 at 45:44.
I read Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12, and to me it's not that impressive. It's not a specific prophesy, because it doesn't tell when the thing will happens, and many people (and even whole nations) of that area and timeframe probably fit that description. Jesus is just the guy that got super popular (though he was not the only one).
​
I agree that Psalm 22 seems to describe somebody being crucified. Or it could be another method of torture that I don't know of, but let's just assume it's crucifixion for the sake of argument. However, it shares the same problems as Isaiah 53: it doesn't give any specifics, so it could be talking about literally anybody from that time and place who was crucified. Jesus quoting the first line while on the cross could easily have been a detail made up by the gospel authors (or the people who participated in the oral tradition), as a way to heighten the image of Jesus as the messiah. They wanted to tell a compelling story, and that would be a great way to make it more compelling to a Jewish audience.
Anyway, the speaker says that at the time of writing Psalm 22, crucifixion had not yet been invented -- but he didn't cite any sources so I don't know if he's right or wrong. I looked it up quickly, and Wiki says "The psalms making up the first two-thirds of the psalter are predominantly pre-exilic and the last third predominantly post-exilic", I think referring to the Babylonian Exile from 586-539 BCE. Since I can't read Wiki's reference I don't know if Psalm 22 is in that pre-exile group, but I'd guess so, and that's the most generous assumption I can make so let's work with that. That gives us an early 6th Century BCE date as the latest possible date for Psalm 22 being written down...
... And here's a reference saying the Persians were crucifying people "systematically" in the 6th Century BCE, and that they probably got the idea from the Assyrians and Babylonians, so those countries may have been doing it earlier than that. So contrary to the speaker's bald assertion, there's some plausible overlap (as far as I can tell) between when Psalm 22 was first written down, and when crucifixions were performed in the region. Yes, I'm working off of the manuscript date rather than the actual date it was composed, but I think that's fine: Psalm 22 began as an oral tradition, and perhaps the crucifixion details were added into it before it was written down, once people became aware of the practice. I think that's far more likely than Psalm 22 being a prophesy, and since we can't reconstruct the original oral tradition we'll just have to wonder.
​
Also, prophesy in general has a few big problems:

1. People who know of the prophesy can work to fulfill it
2. People retelling a story can alter the details of the story to make it seem like the prophesy was fulfilled
3. It's sometimes not clear whether something is a prophesy at all, or what is being prophesied

Both "fulfilled prophesies" cited by the speaker suffer from all these problems.
The authors of the New Testament obviously knew the OT books well, and were motivated to make Jesus seem like the Hebrew messiah -- that's why they wrote the gospels in the first place. That would give them a strong incentive to either make up parts of the gospel stories wholesale to better match the prophesies, or to selectively interpret the things they heard or experienced in a way that makes the events fit the prophesy better.
And even if there wasn't much embellishment, couldn't it be that Jesus and the apostles actively worked to fulfill as much of those "prophesies" as possible? A great quote from Matt Dillahunty: "If I go to a restaurant and order a steak medium rare, and the server gives me exactly that, is he fulfilling prophesy?" In my opinion, nope, he's merely following instructions, just like Jesus and the apostles may have merely been following a script. I understand that some people might still call this "fulfilling prophesy", but given the other 2 problems I think this idea of "fulfilled prophesies" is still on super thin ice.
Finally, Isaiah 53 is often interpreted by Jews as a prophesy for the nation of Israel, not the messiah. And I think they believe Psalm 22 is just a poem or song, not a prophesy. You can claim they're prophesies, but it's not clear that they were intended to be, or what exactly they predict, so when they're "fulfilled" (especially as questionably as in this case) I'm not sure how much that really means.
​
This isn't a great case for the "... in fulfillment of specific prophesies ..." claim. It looks like wishful thinking to me, again perhaps motivated by the speaker's premise that the bible is the ultimate authority. Or maybe I'm wrong and somebody here can do a better job supporting this position than the speaker did.

Claim 6: "... and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

At 51:20, the speaker cites 2 Peter 1 to support the claim that the bible authors claimed their writings are divine in origin. I've already noted my objections to using 2 Peter (a likely forgery) as evidence for anything that Peter the apostle experienced or thought --
But just as with claims for supernatural events, even if 2 Peter is not a forgery, why would it matter that the authors claim the bible is divine in origin? As discussed above I think it's very unlikely that Psalm 22 or Isaiah 52/53 are fulfilled prophesies, so now where are we?
We're left without any supporting evidence for the claim. They said it, so should we just believe it? As with claim 4, this is just very unsatisfying, and I wonder whether the speaker's circular premise had something to do with it.

Final Bones to Pick

I wish I could address his points at 52:12 and 53:15, even though they're not directly related to the rest of the talk -- but I'm out of space.
The first is an appeal to consequences built on an equivocation fallacy, and in the second he describes the questions one must ask in any historical investigation -- questions which he addressed poorly or not at all in this video.
These two attempts to twist logic into a shape that supports his point -- well, they disgust me.

Should You buy Apple stock or has the company run out of growth opportunities? What is my price prediction for Apple in the next years? Read until the end as I reveal my price target for Apple and also what I think will happen in the next couple of days, weeks & months!
~ Warning! Very Very Long Post~
Hello everyone! So, let’s go over some of the latest news on Apple before moving on to some fundamental and technical analysis, predictions and my price target for the stock in the next years.
So, let’s start with the news that Apple will cut the App Store commission in half for small app developers starting in the next days, this will impact developers who earn less than $1M annually from the App Store Sales. This is likely to lead to a small decline in commission revenues for Apple as around 98% of the app developers will qualify for this tax reduction from 30% to 15%, but all these small developers only contribute to about 5% of the estimated $50B in annual revenues from the App Store, so that would be only a $1.25B loss for the company, that is less than half a % of the company’s total net sales in the last fiscal year.
Also, these changes may lead to a potential long-term revenue boost, as it is likely this will lead to an increasing creation of apps which will generate more commissions in return.
Alongside this we also saw the company releasing the new MacBook’s with their first in-house chip, which promises faster video and imaging processing times, with both CPU and GPU performance up to 2 times faster than the latest PC laptop chip using just a fraction of the power consumption, with both of the macbooks promising big improvements in battery life. Apple is also expected to roll out even more in-house chips in future products, as they have started the 2-year breakup with Intel chips.
We also saw Morgan Stanley upgrading their base case to $191 at the end of November, as they have cited record lead times, supply chain forecasts and carriers demand as they expect that the company will sell around 270M iPhone in fiscal year 2021, that’s 50M more than the consensus and almost 30M more than the previous estimate of Morgan Stanley, with an average selling price of 842$, 9% more than the base case, as people tend to chose the more expensive and high tech versions of the lineup in this new 5G cycle.
The 5G super-cycle, which I believe is on the way, and will continue in the next years, as 5G become more available worldwide, could still be the biggest thing coming right away for the company with 5G smartphones expected to surpass 4G sales by 2024, with the average sale price of the 5G phones also coming down, helping them become more popular.
They also released an update iPad Pro and an all-new iPad Air in September which will also boost sales in this work-from-home environment that will keep the demand very high for this kind of products, just like the Macs. Alongside the increasing demand from the Wearables, Home & Accessories that include Air Pods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and many more products.
But the biggest reasons I believe Apple is poised for continued growth, is primarily due to its services business, as they start to have more and more services like the Apple ONE BUNDLE, which include up to 6 services from (Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, the new Apple Fitness+ and the iCloud service) for a pretty reasonable price in my opinion starting from 15$ up to 30$/month, this could be a great option for families and even individuals who use their services a lot.
The latest services, Fitness+ just launched in the past days, and is a direct competitor to the likes of Peloton, as the service is available on the iPhone, iPad or even Apple TV. This also makes consumers buy the Apple Watch which syncs to the other devices to show you all kinds of information. The Fitness+ app just on its own is 8$/month or 80$/year which is less expensive than Peloton subscription which charges 13$ or even traditional gyms like Planet Fitness at 10$/month.
I think this will be the fastest growing sector for the company, as this aligns with the new macro trends, as the world is moving more and more to a digital approach to almost everything as consumer preferences, with more & more younger people reaching the point in life when they use these services start to align to this increasing digital approach.
We also shouldn’t forget the Apple Card & Apple Pay service among many others which also seem to gain from the move to digital & contactless payments, as this has been accelerated due to the current situation in the past year.
And one last piece of news, and the most recent one, is that Apple may have fast-tracked the Titan project. The Titan project is targeting a 2024 or 2025 push to develop an electric vehicle with advanced battery technologies, that will deliver significant increases in range at much lower costs than the current technologies while also having self-driving capabilities.
It’s reported they will not use the same technology as Tesla Full-Self-Driving feature, but will use LIDAR sensors, similar to those that we can find in the latest iPhone 12 PRO.
I think Apple can go 2 ways with this project, they can either use the huge amount of cash the company has to buy another car-maker like Ford, GM or any other car manufacturer expect Tesla and Toyota which do have a big market cap, so that they can fast-track the potential manufacturing of cars, or they can enter into a partnership with big companies like Tesla, Volkswagen or any other car marker to either produce cars or license their technology to this other car-makers which would ultimately and probably have higher margin-returns than the actual manufacturing of cars. Apple’s current overall gross margins stand at 38% vs the 15% average of the world top 10 automakers by market cap, which is significantly lower.
But this Apple Car thing is so long out, and there are so many unknowns, I will not try to predict anything related to this until there is more clarity on the subject.
And last, before moving on to some predictions, here are some of the highlights that we heard from the latest investors conference meeting, as the CEO, Tim Cook expressed optimism ahead with the launch of many new products and services, especially the Home Pod Mini and the new 5G iPhones, as these new iPhones include new LIDAR scanners that greatly improve the camera capabilities, as the iPhone as seen very positive reviews. We also saw the Senior VP and CFO, Luca Maestri give us great outlook for the company as they expect the installed devices base to continue to growth despite already being at an all-time high as they have over 585M paid subscriptions on their platforms and expect this to surpass 600M by the end of 2020.
I also researched and found what products we can see in the near future, with the first half of 2021 bringing new iMacs, the AirPods3 and the iPad Pro, while in the FALL event we will probably get the new iPhone 13 alongside the iPhone SE PLUS and the Watch Series 7 with more products coming later in 2021 or that don’t have an estimated release date like the Air Pods Pro, the Air Tags and the iPad Mini 6.
So, before even starting, you should know that I am bull on Apple but I am willing to hear other opinions so don’t be afraid to leave a comment down below.
I have made some predictions based on the growth rate of the company, the latest plans announced by them and used some estimates. So, keep in mind this are only projections and are calculated by myself, this is not an investment advice and you should do your own research.
This are my 2025 projections for Apple, let’s take a closer look at them, each on their own.
So, in term of revenues, Apple has 5 big sources of revenue, which saw an overall increase of 6% despite lagging sales in the iPhone. The biggest revenue is by a big margin the iPhone right now with over $137B in revenue in the fiscal year ending in September. I expect to see the iPhone sales increasing in the next years, especially in 2021, with the new 5G iPhone creating a super-cycle for the company, as most iPhone users, including myself here, as I will upgrade from my iPhone X, will switch to this new product. The iPhone sales have decreased in the last couple of years by 14% and 3% as a result of the product not having big improvements, as well as iPhone usually starting to last longer than previous models, so I expect to see a 12% increase in sales next year and a gradual decrease in the growth of sales as more people upgrade, ending with just a 5% growth in iPhone sales in 2025.
The next revenues stream is from the Mac, which has seen an increase in the past 2years, with revenues topping $28B this year after the huge demand from the work from home consumers. I expect this trend to continue as they plan to continue to launch better products and I can see the company having a similar growth next year before starting to decline slightly until 2025, also ending with a 5% growth.
The iPad is currently the smallest revenue stream for Apple but has also seen an increase in demand in the past 2 years with a 13% average increase in revenues. I also expect the iPad to continue to grow in the next couple of years, especially with the learn-from-home environment for kids, and even after this period ends, the transformation for learning will implicate more digital usage. I expect the iPad to see some similar growth to the Macs, especially with the latest generation also bringing a new iPad air to the market.
The 4th revenue stream and the fastest growing in the past 2 years, with an average growth of 33% are the wearables, home & accessories revenues. This have topped $30B this year, as Apple has also just launched the Apple Watch series 6 and also feature other great products like Apple TV, the Air Pods the Home Pod and the Home Pod mini alongside other third-party accessories.
I gave this revenue stream a growth of 20% starting next year with a gradual decrease to around 8% by 2025, as I believe this will become more & more popular as they start to have more vertical integration.
And last, but by no means least, the revenue stream that I expect to grow the most and the fastest is the revenue from the services that Apple gets. This includes revenues from Apple Care, Advertising, Cloud Services, Payment Services like Apple Card & Apple Pay and of course the digital content which includes fees from the App Store alongside subscription-based revenue including the new Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ alongside the already know Apple Arcade, Apple Music, Apple News+, Apple TV+ and hopefully I don’t forget any others.
So, I expect this to become the clear 2nd biggest revenue stream for Apple by 2025, as I expect this to grow more than 20% next year, mainly due to the Apple One Bundle and Apple Fitness+ followed up by a slightly decreasing growth, ending with a 10% increase in revenues in 2025.
I think this are fairly conservative base case scenarios for the revenues, as I expect them to continue to increase the other revenue streams and not have such a large percentage of the revenues coming from the iPhone sales as you can see in this chart.
In terms of expenses, I pretty much kept the same margins as in previous years, with a 68% expense ratio on product sales [ iPhone / iPad / Mac / WHA ] and 35% expense ratio on SERVICES, as this are way more lucrative.
In the past 3 years, the products gross margin was 32.7%, so I actually imply bigger expenses for the manufacturing and sales of products, as this is mostly impacted by the company’s supplier’s ability to make up for and demand, while for the services revenue, the gross margins for the last 3 years has been 63.5% on average, but I expect this to be more in-line with the 66% margin in this past year. So, if services manage to grow to about half the revenues from the iPhone, this will double the gross revenues, as every buck gained in the service revenues account for 2$ in the product sales.
So, I expect the total revenues for Apple to increase from $274B in 2020 to over $440B by 2025, increasing by approximately 10%/year, while I will keep the expense ratio pretty much in-line and have them increasing by 11%/year, this would bring the total gross for Apple to $177B, increasing mainly due to the services revenues as I said earlier. This growth is just above the 4year average, and below the 2018 levels, which we might see again with this 5G super-cycle and explosive growth in the services revenue.
I also think the company will continue to invest in both Capital Expenditure and Operating expenses.
I think the operating expenses will remain pretty much in line with the previous years, as this number has increased by 1% annually both in R&D and SG&A. So, I will keep the exact percentages from previous years, as I expect the revenue to increase, thus I don’t see a big increase percentage wise. This would account for over $60B in operating expenses by 2025 and over $11B in Capital Expenditures by 2025, as I expect this to increase, mainly due to the possible EV developments or investments in self-driving capabilities alongside other manufacturing capabilities. You can see that the Capex spending has been decreasing in the past years with just over $8.8B in payments for business acquisitions and the other traditional Capex spending. Some people may use the cash generated by investing activities as Capex, but that is more unreliable. I also can see the Capex going back up, so I wanted to be safe and implied a 10% growth.
This money would account for over $73B in expenses and would bring the profit for the company to almost $104B before I&T.
Moving on, let’s see what revenue and expenses the company has had in the past few years. We can see a decrease in I expense in the past few years as the company has been paying debt, but they have also been generating less money in this department, with an overall decrease in this department of more than 50% in the past year, way less than the amount from 2018. So, for safety reasons, I used a 10% decline in both revenues and expenses related to I, while increasing the other losses by 10%/year.
This would bring the company pre-tax $$$ to just over $104B in 2025.
Let’s move on to taxes. I know the Federal tax rate is 21% for the company, but the actual tax rate for the company was lower than 15% in the past year, mainly due to lower tax-rates on foreign earnings alongside tax-benefits and tax-settlements. The average tax rate has been just over 16% in the past 3 years, but with more and more of the revenues coming from outside the US, I think it’s safe to say that the company will have around a 15% tax rate by 2025, this obviously if nothing major changes in tax policy around the world.
So, Apple would have $88.6B in $$ after tax by 2025 and with the current outstanding shares standing at just under 17B, so I don’t even account for the company probably continuing to do share buybacks, this would mean a $5.22 future earnings/share. And with today’s price for Apple just around 136$, that would mean to company is trading at just over 26 times forward price to earnings.
I don’t think Apple will ever trade at a discount again, with the current PE standing at over 40, I believe this will eventually go down, probably to around 35, despite the increase in services revenue, which is highly valued by investors. I think we can see Apple trade somewhere near 35 times P/E in 2025, especially if something big happens with the EV project, this could be even higher, just look at Tesla which trades at insane P/E. Of course, we also have to take into consideration the dividends that will be received from owning the stock, as Apple has started to pay dividends almost a decade ago and has 9 years of dividend growth, with a 10% annual rate of growth in the past 5 years. Here is the dividend growth history for the company, as I also went conservative on this estimate and implied a 7% growth for the next 2 years, 6% for 2023 and 2024 and just 5% in 2025.
So here are my 3 price targets for the company, including dividends but not reinvested. My bear case scenario is that Apple will trade at almost 165$ which implies a return of over 21% by 2025, while my base case scenario would see Apple trading at 195$ with a return of capital of 43%. I will also make the bull case for Apple trading at 225$ by 2025 with dividends included, which would imply just over 65% in gains by then.
I think this is possible as Apple has also continued to buy back shares of the company on a constant basis, as they continue to an impressive campaign with over $72B worth of common stock repurchased in 2020. They continue to buy back shares at a very fast pace, having repurchased over 1.3B shares in 2019 and 2018, while also issuing less stock every year.
So here is the full spreadsheet that I have projected for Apple by 2025 and the breakdown of everything i estimated [ 1 / 2 ] , if you do have another opinion or a suggestion please leave a comment down below, I think I have been conservative in most of my projections, but feel free to give your opinion.
Keep in mind, these targets might sound ridiculous, but just look at the growth Apple has had in the last 5years. The company has increased in value by more 400% in just the past 5years and is over 100.000% up since it started trading. So yes, the valuation is mad right now for the company. So, are you willing to bet against Apple?
The company also has pristine financials, with more than $65B in total assets compared to total liabilities, and more than $38B in cash and cash equivalents.
So, what do I expect in the next couple of days, weeks and months for Apple?
Let’s look at this CHART, so starting with the stock split, Apple saw a correction within the September stock market pullback, in a buy the news & sell the event, after a huge runup post-announcement of the stock split. The stock entered a consolidation period, and didn’t have any big catalysts, especially with new iPhone lineup not being included in the Q4 results due to the late launch. The stock found some levels of resistance near the $120 levels that it struggled to get past but acted also as support after breaking them just before the recent news of the possible EV developments or self-driving-features to be licensed to other car manufacturers. After that news the stock spiked and has now reached the previous highs made before the stock split and is facing some resistance, if the stock pushes over $140 I think we can say that it broke the resistance at those levels and is not just a fake-out. But I think it’s likely that the stock will consolidate between 122 and 135$ in the next weeks until the next iPhone sales and quarterly results are released, as the stock has entered overbought territory again with an RSI over 70, the first time since the stock split.
So, what would I do? Well, I own Apple stock, and I would really add on any weakness that the stock shows before the next quarter earnings are released, as typically Q1 earnings are the best for the company due to increased holiday sales combined with the launch of new products. I think any entry below 130$ would be really nice to start and build a position or increase it if you already own the stock.
Thank you everyone for reading! Hope you enjoyed the content! Be sure to leave a comment down below with your opinion on the stock market!
Have a great day and see you next time!

So, I got an email from Montey Fool this morning. I'm not a paid subscriber to them or anything. They just happen to send me emails in tempts to get me signed up for their paid subscription. I strongly believe the company they are talking about is BlackBerry. What do you guys think? The email is below:
Dear Investor,
Jeff Bezos stunned investors when he revealed that one emerging technology is the key to Amazon’s future success…
In fact, Bezos argues that “it’s hard to overstate the impact” of this “powerful trend.”
The CEO of ARK Investments, a fund with over $10 billion under management, took Bezos statement one step further: “We think [it] could approach $17 trillion in market cap — which would be 35 Amazons.”
WHAT in the world could be worth 35 Amazons?
The answer is a radical breakthrough that Wired says is “the rocket fuel of the AI boom.”
And they’re not alone in seeing it that way…
A Shark Tank billionaire says AI will create the world’s first trillionaire
Elon Musk is contributing to a $1 billion investment in this technology
Even super investor Warren Buffett says that it's "enormously disruptive" and will have a "hugely beneficial social effect”
When so many successful people are all saying the same thing, it usually pays to listen.
Which is why this giant leap forward has Bay Street insiders seeing dollar signs.
And if you’re a Canadian investor, I haven’t even told you the best part…
Because there's one remarkable Canadian company that's absolutely dominating this booming market.
This TSX-listed company is only about 1% the size of Amazon, yet they’ve already begun introducing this ground-breaking technology to the market.
So with everything I’m hearing coming out of Silicon Valley and Bay Street…
I don’t feel like I’m very far out on a limb with this “bold” prediction:
Five years from now, you’ll probably wish you’d bought this TSX stock.
And the good news is that you can find out all about this company and this incredible technology today.
Because we’ve laid out the full story on this “powerful trend” in an exclusive report.
And you are going to want to see this free report before you invest $1 on any tech company.
Because inside you’ll discover why some mega-rich investors are racing to cash-in on this tech trend.
And how one tiny TSX stock could be your best bet to profit from this incredible tech revolution…
But if you want to get in on this opportunity, I encourage you to act quickly.
Because the story of the coming boom is already starting to leak out, and this trend looks ready to take off.
Simply click the button below to access your exclusive report now.

If you read the Men's rd 1 write up you can skip the paragraph below and head straight to the writeups. I participate in a picking competition that runs for most of the tournaments on tour and recently u/kuklachert who runs it has set up an automated site to take it to the next level. Check it out if you're interested!
Kukla has taken the time to put together a really great and easy-to-use site to automate his tennis picking competitons. The Australian Open will be the first contest this site is public for, so if you're looking for a fun way to compete against your friends and predict tennis without losing money to shady books, check it out 🐢. Just sign up (totally free to join and compete), join the Australian Open comp, and start picking. The site automatically tracks all your results, and maintains a leaderboard. The chat (runs thru discord) is a great place to hang out while you're watching, and there are even some small cash prizes for the top 3 finishers. If you like picking tennis, or tennis, or cash, or prizes, or turtles, or turtles as prizes, or strawberries, or cookies, or tennis, then this is the site for you <3. Check it out here, and remember since it's new feedback is always welcome
Australian Open Picking Competition
​
Barty Kovinic : Rust is apparently not a thing for Ashleigh Barty. The loveable nugget from Australia took an entire year off from the tour due to Covid concerns, but started off this year as she does most years, by making the finals of the inaugural event. She has looked just as good as she ever was this week, and in the spot where she was likely to stagger against Bouskova (who was playing some excellent tennis in the 2nd and 3rd set) she was able to steady herself despite visible frustration. Although she has a finals left against a peak-form Muguruza, Barty’s fitness has never come into question, and since the WTA plays the 2/3 format, she shouldn’t really struggle with fatigue in the early rounds.
Kovinic has been a really consistent performer in early rounds on tour the past season or so, and she represents a very consistent baseliner who generally beats the players she’s supposed to. Barty just doesn’t give up the easy errors though, and will be sharp following some good matches this week. In Barty’s past as well as Osaka’s and Serena’s is losing sets in early rounds of majors, but here I think she will have ample time to right the ship even if she does go down an early break. Barty in 2.
Gavrilova Sorribes Tormo : This is a tough match for both players. Gavrilova struggled with injury for a while, but despite the lopsided scores against Serena this past week she played well. There are a lot of quality baseliners on the tour so the fact that these two stand out as very consistent is a testament to how hard they work on court. Gavrilova plays a bit more offense, but hasn’t really had a ton of wins. Tormo has won a bunch of matches, but lately is starting to slump a little. Bookmakers have this as a pickem, and I agree. It’s hard to see either player really pulling away here, and so the winner will have to be decided by who plays the big points better. Gavrilova has a slightly better serve, but Tormo makes a ton of noise on every shot and it’s fairly obvious that outlasting her opponent and outworking them is her intent. If Gavrilova loses it’ll be to rust. Simple shots into the net, and offensive opportunities sent long because of Tormo’s defense pressure. If she converts these, she should win as Tormo is unlikely to deviate. Gavrilova in 3.
Krejcikova Zheng : This is one where I disagree with the line as set. Krejcikova has had one of the quietest yet best years of her career. No major buzz, no discussions of her future from announcers, but sets taken off top players and cohesive beatdowns of players for entire matches. There was a match I watched last year against I believe Azarenka where she didn’t miss a shot for an entire set. For her to be only a mild favorite against Zheng I can really only chalk up to these being somewhat unknown talents to the general betting public and to Zheng’s ranking being a touch higher. I expect Krejcikova to continue to improve, and Zheng losing to Begu in 3 last week is understandable, but that was a matchup she had won in the past so her confidence has to be a bit under duress. Krejcikova in 2.
Trevisan Alexandrova : Unstoppable force immovable object type matchup. Trevisan is slated to lose almost every match she plays but she never alters her game. She keeps the ball in play in and is able to convert big unexpected shots on her forehand when you least expect it. The sort of Nadal above the head forehand means it’s tough to tell when she’s going to go down the line. Her attitude is great and her fight is inspiring. Overall though, she’s not currently going to overwhelm too many opponents. Losing to Petkovic isn’t great, as she does give you long stretches of errors at times. Across the net from her now is also Alexandrova, who just hit through Halep the previous week and is on an absolute tear. Alexadrova is always a pretty big favorite in early rounds, and she will be here also even though Trevisan is one of my favorite new competitors. Just making gets and attacking the backhand won’t be enough here for Trevisan. Alexandrova in 2.
Sasnovich Kontaveit : “This is as good a spot for Sasnovich to beat Kontaveit as she’ll likely see on tour.” That was my first thought when I saw this matchup. Kontaveit still has a semifinals to play today against Sakkari, and given how big she hits, fatigue could be a factor. Checking their history though, Sasnovich has won all but one of their contests so I really underrated her chances in the matchup. She even beat her last year at this exact event. I did bit of scoreboard watching this week also and caught Kontaveit having a bit more trouble than she should have with Mattek-Sands. It’s a bit puzzling since Kontaveit has such a dynamic game, but Sasnovich has a good chance to take this. Sasnovich in 3.
Watson Kr. Pliskova : Heather Watson has one of the widest spectrums of play on the WTA. She’s a great server and strings together at least one finals run each year, but in between she loses in straight sets to a number of opponents. Krystina Pliskova on the other hand never really makes the big splash, but wins a lot of matches and is a pretty steady fixture on tour. This is a serving battle and in serving battles the X factor is often who moves better in rallies. Pliskova’s backhand is heavy and she plays a game similar to Delbonis where more effort goes into the shot to try to avoid the ball being redirected, but she’s a bit slow. Watson is actually quite quick for a server, and given her history of notching wins against Pliskova, and the pickem line set by bookmakers, I lean towards her having a good chance to advance here. Watson in 3.
Rogers Jones : Shelbyyyyyyyy! Rogers has really blossomed in the past year and a half, and it’s good to see her finally notching wins on tour. She’s worked hard on her fitness and it’s resulting in greater court coverage. Francesca Jones looked amazing in qualifiers, and was crushing the ball early last week against Podoroska, but it’s clear that at this stage of her career, she needs time and control of rallies to really thrive. Rogers hits a heavy ball with a less exaggerated but similar motion to Madison Keys, and the time that she takes away from her opponents will prove to be the difference here. Podoroska punished Jones by redirecting her shots and the extra quality of pace coming back was often the undoing of Jones. I think Jones has a bright future, but she’ll need some help from the draws going forward to rise up the rankings. Rogers in 2.
Martic Danilovic : I am a big Petra Martic fan, but there is something lacking from her game sometimes. She started slow against Lapko, and never really threatened against Rogers. She should win this match, but Danilovic is a promising player and she’ll make Martic work for it. Her loss last week to Greet Minnen wasn’t a great scoreline, but Danilovic broke serve a few times and Minnen really came into this even sharp. I think this goes three, and Martic will need to control the tempo of the game in order to win because this is a very tricky spot for her. Martic in 3.
Bencic Davis : Woof. Bencic really has phoned in some performances lately. She’s got the game to win tournaments but really can’t find victories a good portion of the time. A quickish loss to Cirstea doesn’t mean the end of the world since Sorana is playing great tennis, but these are matches Bencic should win. A relative gift here from the draw since Lauren Davis doesn’t really overwhelm anyone, but Bencic will need to appear and compete to make her 2-0 advantage against Davis 3-0. This is a similar matchup to Martic’s where the favorite should find a way to win but the challenger absolutely will if they struggle on offense. Bencic in 3 or it could be a long year.
Strycova Kuznetsova : Strycova lost to Mattek-Sands last week which isn’t a real problem since hardcourt isn’t her best surface and Mattek-Sands presents a unique and frustrating challenge by getting to net so often. Rushing opponents who haven’t really had a ton of matchplay is a decent plan, and it paid off. Coming into this there’s not a lot of reason to think Strycova has anything wrong, but no real reason to think she’ll dominate this matchup either. Kuznetsova started off reeling off games against Brady, but the wind slowed down her ball and she really folded in the second set. Understandable, as Brady is really a top tier opponent, but not the kind of fight that makes me think she’s going to dominate Strycova. I still expect Kuznetsova’s baseline prowess to give her a pretty good chance to win here, but that it will be close since these two know each other so well and are towards the ends of their careers. Kuznetsova in 3.
Zhu Osuigwe : Lin Zhu has not been crushing worlds on tour, but Osuigwe is not quite read for the tour. Her AO qualifying draw was the easiest one offered, but beating Buzarnescu in the finals is still a great win for her. The junior standout is going to be a big question mark in any significant stage on tour, and although her and Zhu have similar quality games at the moment, it is more likely that the junior falters here. Zhu is very consistent and I give her the tiniest edge at the moment. Zhu in 3.
Mertens Fernandez : Mertens is my favorite. This is common knowledge. I don’t believe in elfs. That would be silly. But if I did. And they lived among us. And they were adorable. And they played really skillful tennis. I’m just saying. I’m just saying.
Fernandez really has some tough draws lately, and I hope the talented junior gets more matches that are not so very unwinnable soon. She showed what she can do by beating Sloane Stephens unmercifully last week, but Sloane is just shrugging and picking up checks at this point so I would expect Fernandez to want to play some 50-100 range talent soon. Mertens is a bit too stable from the baseline and will be able to move Fernandez well. Fernandez thrives on being lefty and exposing her opponents movement, but will be at a power disadvantage here. It just seems like barring a very bad day from Mertens, that this is a bit of a bad matchup for Fernendez. Elf in 2.
Ostapenko Muchova : There are elfs and there are dwarfs. Jelena Ostapenko is a cat swatting things off a table. You do not know why she does it and she is not likely to stop. There is something very reassuring about the singular approach Ostapenko takes to tennis, and going for winners every shot has netted her some very big results, but she doesn’t bring the best attitude to the bad times. Muchova plays one of the best rounded games on tour, and I’m a bit surprised that she’s not more of a favorite. Her defending is pretty darn special at times, and I think that Ostapenko will struggle with timing since Muchova can hang with some pretty big hitting. I think Muchova’s conditioning is a bit better also. Muchova in 3.
Cocciaretto Barthel : Cocciaretto is inching up the rankings nicely, and this is a great spot for her. Barthel has some talent, but being off the tour for so long has set her back a bit and it could be a bit longer before she really starts to win matches. This is winnable as Cocciaretto isn’t just going to serve you out, but she’ll have an edge from the baseline and has to know this is a good opportunity to snag ranking points against an unsteady opponent. Cocciaretto in 2-3.
Bogdan Collins : Tough opener for Bogdan, who crushes worlds in qualifers and early rounds, but doesn’t really have the marquee victories next to her name that would make her a good option to win this contest. Collins played extra sharp last week, and had a great 2020. Her serving has sort of improved, and given Serena’s resurgence, splitting sets with her hints that Collins’ peak performance of 2020 is her new level. Bogdan is very good, but not dangerous enough to shut Danielle out of the match. Collins in 2.
Pliskova Paolini : Pliskova matches are the most random events generally. Sometimes she smokes everything without blinking and looks like she’ll win the whole tournament. Sometimes it’s obvious she doesn’t really feel like making a full effort and her opponents get close. I think the moment is what dictates her effort, and she’ll put in enough effort here to beat Paolini. Jasmine has kinda thrived lately on just sticking around in matches, and hopefully Pliskova’s team will make it clear to her that this is a player who believes they can win this match. Pliskova in 2 but if she starts missing this could take 3.
Inglis Kenin : Maddison is a nice player, and it’s great for her to get a chance in a major, but this isn’t a lucky draw at all. Kenin is a frontrunner to go deep in any hardcourt event she enters. Super emphatic walking all day. Kenin in 2.
Kanepi Sevastova : Kaia Kanepi was formerly a player who’d go deep in the 3-4 tournaments a year that she showed up to, but in recent years she’d struggled to string wins together. A brilliant run this past week is likely to continue, but she has had some shoulder injuries in the past so she’s a mild question mark in this first round. I expect to see some kinesiology tape on her, and although Sevastova is a frustrating opponent we should see Kanepi able to control the rallies. Kanepi in 2.
McHale Podoroska : Christina McHale is a good baseliner. I feel like sometimes I say everyone is that when they’re just kinda generic. The truth is none of these players are generic. Tennis is ridiculously difficult and there just aren’t a myriad number of ways to play it and win unless you’re incredibly talented or physically gifted. Everything looks like pushing when you don’t have an edge in ballstriking. Pushing won’t work here though. Podoroska looked lost on hardcourt a few months ago. She even looked to be struggling early against Jones. She looked like she was outclassed at times against Kvitova. She continues to improve though and she has a great mind for tennis. This is a straightforward match and if she isn’t pressured Podoroska moves the ball too well to lose this. Podoroska in 2.
Vekic Wang : Donna Vekic just hasn’t won matches. She has a great game and looks like she’s a threat to win the event for a set, and then she just finds herself a bit behind the pace and loses. It has to be a mental struggle to really believe she’s going to turn it around at this point, and add in that here she’s expected to win but was beaten by Wang in their only previous meeting in Acapulco. How much tennis are we really playing at an event in Acapulco? I’m not quite sure. I do know that Vekic took a set off Pironkova last week, and she’ll have ample chances to employ her offense against Wang. This is a must-win for Vekic, and I think she’ll shrug off her struggles here. Vekic in 3.
Brady Bolsova Zadoinov : Brady is a fudge brownie in a world of regular brownies. There is something so pure about the way Ernie and Bert’s human cousin approaches tennis. It is a ton of fun to watch her forehand flutter through the air, and her backhand was never great but she has made great improvements to the length she gets on it and minimizing the slice habit has been great for her results. Bolsova had a couple nice wins recently to get her back on track on tour but this is relatively unwinnable. Windy conditions are really the only thing that’s going to throw people off this week in Australia and the wind honestly benefits players like Brady who can put a lot of shape/junk on the ball. Brady in 2.
Brengle Rodionova : Brengle seems like she’s a pretty big favorite here. Rodionova is benefitting a bit from wildcards at this point in her career, and she isn’t really a big threat to beat most of the top 100. Brengle in 2.
Sherif Pacquet : Mayar Sherif is a new name but she really is an effective winner. Her best attribute is durability so far. She extends rallies and hustles and hits a solid ball which is enough against lower tier opponents. As she gets more comfortable on tour I’m sure we’ll see more of her offense, but her plan A is best against this particular opponent. Chloe Paquet has one of the best T serves on tour, and goes for it almost every time. It’s a simple motion, and it nets a lot of cheap points since she serve and volleys often. Her marathon match with Destanee Aiava though illustrated that a good defender can make things very tense. I don’t consider Sherif such a big favorite as the -300 line she’s offered at, but given she’s a good bit better than Aiava at a similar strategy so she is likely to find the finish line here. Pacquet is great, but it’s really difficult to win matches when you have to earn every point, and she will here. Sherif in 3.
Konta Juvan : Jo Konta is a tricky one to predict. She sometimes looks very solid but struggles in extended rallies with errors. Begu was in good form so her losing there isn’t a problem, but there isn’t much to take away from her win against Pera. Pera was double-faulting at a really nonstop rate, and when that’s going on players beat themselves. Kaja Juvan is a tough test here, and she’s already snagged some good names and faces on tour. Coming through qualifying at the AO and also almost snagging Swiatek last week are good steps, but beating Konta may be a cut above what she’s accomplished so far. I expect Juvan to win a set, but maybe not the match. Konta in 3.
Azarenka Pegula : This doesn’t seem fair. Azarenka was the best player in 2020 for my money but that run has to cool off a bit. Her win against Putintseva shows she’s still focused, but her withdrawal to Kontaveit lends a bit of mystery to her quality heading into this match. Pegula had a decent week almost defeating Kenin, and this will be a good quality affair since Pegula really has good energy at the baseline and a solid forehand. I think she’ll struggle to find points though if Azarenka is full strength as Vika’s defending and counterpunching is a big strength of hers. Azarenka in 2.
Aiava Stosur : Couple wildcards playing in the first round. Destanee Aiava is clearly very talented and has great defending. She extends points well and her serve is passable. I’m not really sure how much tennis training she’s doing though as she’s a tiny tiny tiny small very minimal little bit heavier than she might want to be to really compete. She’s still young and there’s no reason she has to be completely committed to tennis or train her brains out anyway, just an area I think could make a match like this a clear victory rather than a “well she should win”. Sam Stosur hasn’t really played much winning tennis the past few seasons. She’s basically retired but still enjoying the sport the way I see it. Still has a great serve, a fast forehand, and can compete a bit but I don’t really see her fistpumping and getting too excited over it. This is one where Aiava’s war with Pacquet means she is able to outlast an offensive talent, but where Stosur’s experience may make her a bit more effective with her opportunities than Pacquet. Tough to really decide, and with Azarenka or Pegula waiting in round two, this is one I’m ok getting wrong. Stosur in 2.
Hibino Sharma : Hibino has climbed the rankings nicely again after some tough relatively winless seasons. She hasn’t played since the French which is a puzzle, and she’s sat at a pickem here against Sharma who really hasn’t won a ton of matches but has played some great isolated sets of tennis. Sharma is one of the few players who took a set from Kanepi this past week and since Hibino should be a bit rusty and is generally not an overwhelming talent but more of a counterpuncher this is a good chance for Astra. Sharma in 3.
Sakkari Mladenovic : Maria Sakkari is a top 10 player for the foreseeable future. She works too hard on conditioning to be outlasted, and the more comfortable she gets on tour the fewer errors she makes. Mladenovic is on a bad slide but is too talented to ever really crash off the tour. This is a rough draw, and she’s unlikely to come up with enough offense to beat Sakkari. Sakkarin in 2.
Stephens Putintseva : Sloane Stephens is already retired, and tennis is her retirement home. I don’t begrudge an athlete who’s accomplished so much some time off, and it really makes predicting her matches a bit easier. Sloane has the talent to beat anyone and hits the ball heavy when she’s playing well. She can drag her way through a match playing poorly, but the peak peformances that netted her titles are few and far between at this point.
Putintseva has been winning when she’s supposed to, and is very solid from the baseline. She might play the most error free tennis of anyone on tour in some stretches, and she’ll be able to frustrate Stephens. Putintseva in 2.
Burel Van Uytvanck : Clara Burel is very good, but like most junior standouts much of your future on tour depends on who you draw in the first round. Against a more conservative player or even someone with a smaller offense, Burel is going to have a good shot at winning. She drew Giorgi last week though and showed that while she’s a very talented player, she can’t really counterpunch nonstop during a match. This will be the ask here as well, and as well as Van Uytvanck played last week, the only issue working against her is how quickly she imploded against Muguruza when the ball started coming back.
AVU really plays nonstop offense, and can hit herself out of matches quickly if her opponent gets the ball deep. She’ll have a much easier time holding serve than Burel though, and I think in a tiebreakelate set situation Van Uytvanck’s serving will be a big plus as well as her experience. Burel will at some point be better than AVU, it’s just not quite there yet. Close match, but AVU in 3.
Teichmann Gauff : This is kinda puzzling. These two played first round in last week’s event as well, and Gauff didn’t do anything special but never really seemed like she was in danger. It was a 3 setter, and there were momentum shifts, but it seems like Teichmann has to do an awful lot to win a point and Gauff is able to just defend and eventually overwhelm her opponents. Pushing isn’t my favorite, but it’s hard to say that Teichmann is going to turn that result around in a week. Gauff in the same 3.
Svitolina Bouzkova : There are some really tough first rounds in this section of the draw. Svitolina is always a threat to go on a tear. Her defending is second to none and her forehand is solid when she’s confident. The problem across the net is that Bouzkova brings a similar level of defending, so this is likely to come down to who makes errors when forcing offense. Bouzkova didn’t struggle much to move the ball against Barty, but she played 2 good sets and one bad one. It’ll be a similar issue here. I think she can win a set, but winding up in a third set against Svitolina and having to come up with 6 games of winners is very tough. The upset is possible, but will require a really comprehensive performance. Svitolina in 3.
Andreescu Buzarnescu : A lucky loser spot will get Buzarnescu a nice paycheck. After struggling with some knee injuries, Andreescu finally makes her return to the tour. It’s tough to know what to really expect, but Buzarnescu has struggled to win matches on hardcourt, and it’s likely that Andreescu will have ample chances to win here. It’ll be interesting to see how she’s playing after such an extended break. Andreescu in 2.
Hsieh Pironkova : Hsieh pretty much gave up against Van Uytvanck last week and was having clean winners hit off her serve. She’s a fan favorite, but hasn’t been winning matches. Pironkova on the other hand, has pretty much beaten everyone on tour she’s faced since returning. I think that run continues here. Pironokova in 2.
Flipkens V. Williams : Flipkens wins just when you think she can’t. I think this is one of those spots where she can’t. Venus Williams isn’t going to beat the top half of the tour, but she’s still a pretty adept server and if she doesn’t have to move a lot, she’s a very tough out in early rounds. Flipkens thrives on a slice-heavy game and generally nets most of her wins against overzealous youth. Venus is neither, and should have the ability to win here. I don’t agree with her -318 pricetag, but I think her price is often inflated. Williams in 3.
Wang Errani : There’s always a good chance that Wang gets the job done in straight sets. She really performs well as a favorite, and rarely wins when she isn’t. Here she has a tricky opponent in Errani. Errani wins this matchup on clay, but hardcourt leaves her a bit lacking in big weapons. Wang hits big, but lost to Paolini last week which is a similar caliber of player to Errani. Errani is coming off a qualifying run in the AO, and lost a decider this past week to an in-form Ostapenko. This is a similar opponent and I’d expect a very close match. Wang winning here puts her in good shape since she can defeat Venus in round two, but the upset isn’t out of the question since Wang was able to basically get outlasted last week. Errani in 3.
Voundrousova Peterson : Marketa managed to wake up this past week, and because of that she’s probably going to win this match. She found good length on her forehand, and when she’s in a rhythm she’s very tiring to beat. Peterson has a great ability to get to the 5-5 point in matches, but hasn’t closed them out of late. There’s nothing overpowering in her game and you kinda need that to beat Voundrousova. Voundrousova in 2.
Marino Birrell : Marino did well to qualify for the AO, and playing a wild card ranked in the 700s is a good reward. Since I know Marino is reading this, I’m picking her. Marino in 2.
Tig Cirstea : Tig is one of the toughest fighters on tour. Some might say her attitude on court is, awful. Her play reflects how hard she’s fighting though, and she acknowledged in some interviews that she gets too intense at times. She hasn’t really found her hardcourt game yet, and Cirstea really has in the past few weeks. Tig will make this a long match, but it’s Cirstea’s offense vs Cirstea’s mistakes in this one. Most pro’s win that battle when it’s availalble. Cirstea in 3.
Minnen Kvitova : Tough draw for Minnen who came out firing last week and looks to have a bright future on tour. Kvitova is occasionally caught off guard but she tends to do well in serving battles and this is one. Kvitova in 2.
Muguruza Gasparyan : Muguruza is ballin. As I’m typing this she’s struggling to find easy points against Barty, but this week she has looked at her best. Two opponents have gotten 0 games in a set against her already, and that spells trouble for Gasparyan. Muguruza’s losses on tour are usually hard to watch and she looks tentative while makes tons of simple errors. This tells me that generally the difference in her game is how much training she’s doing and how much tennis she’s playing. For now, it’s a lot of both. Gasparyan is pretty darn good and a lucky loser spot is fair since she really does belong in the main draw, but this is toooooo tough. Muguruza in 2.
Samsonova Badosa : Tough tough first round. Liudmila Samsonova sorta reminds me of Rybakina and Sabalenka. She crushes the ball on both wings, she moves well, but her breakout performances were followed by a bunch of tough draws and losses. I think many players just get a bit solved by the tour, and Samsonova will have to wait a while to really announce herself. This is a good opportunity for her, and Badosa. Badosa is one of the ball-machines currently operating on tour, and really doesn’t give much up once the rally is started. This is a classic offense vs defense matchup, and although I think Samsonova has a higher ceiling, at this point Badosa should get the job done. Badosa in 3.
Diyaz Zidansek : Zarina Diyas is a player that always seems encouraging, but doesn’t win a lot. Her speed is off the charts, but her game is really geared towards that 2017-18 stretch where there weren’t really dominant players offensively and a lot of matches were about outlasting the other player. The shoutout format is really back now, and I think Diyas has to make some adjustments. Zidansek is mostly a clay talent, but she has better options and variety than Diyas. I wonder if anyone is reading this. Diyas beat Zidansek in 2018, but hasn’t really beaten many players since. Zidansek had some nice wins against Brady and Fernandez recently, so I’d lean towards her. Zidansek in 3.
Pera Kerber : Bernarda Pera winds up in a third set pretty much every time she steps on the court, but this past week in the windy conditions her serve left her bigtime. It was frustrating to watch and she never really found the motion against Konta. I don’t expect this to improve during a match against a very offensive returner in Angelique Kerber. Kerber looked sharp on isolated points this week, and I think she’ll be able to break early and often against Pera. Kerber in 2.
Petkovic Jabeur : Petkovic hit through Trevisan which means she’s at the top of her game. The top of her game though, is at the bottom of Jabeur’s. Since Petkovic is such a great athlete, her ballstriking can make this close for a bit, but Jabeur’s serving is top level and even though she plays a bit impatient, she’s likely to close this out even if she gives up an early deficit. Jabeur in 3.
Hibi Schmiedlova : This is a good one. Hibi is on a roll stretching 5 wins in a row to start the season prior to going down to Mertens (no shame there) this week. Schmiedlova has been really solid since coming back to the tour and has pulled a couple upsets most notably besting Azarenka at the Frenchest Open. Schmiedlova is likely to be the bigger hitter here but with both coming in in decent form, this should go down to the wire. Schmiedlova in 3.
Hercog Garcia : I’m not sure why I always think Hercog is going to win, but I do. Part of the equation here is that Caroline Garcia has turned in some of the most random poor performances I’ve ever seen, and Hercog pretty much always plays well even if she doesn’t really have the weapons to beat a top defender. It’s time to stop doubting though. Garcia has won all of the previous meetings between these two, and she played ok last week. Garcia in 2.
Pavlyuchenkova Osaka : Tough first round for Osaka as Pavs isn’t really interesting in what name is across the net, but pretty winnable. Osaka can lose any match, but can win any match also and that tends to be her most frequent result of late. Osaka in 2.
Sabalenka Kuzmova : Sabalenka struggles with strange losses less and less as she matures. I think she’ll add a good number of indoor titles this year, but her outdoor game will take another year or so. Hard to pick against her here though. Sabalenka in 2.
Boulter Kasatkina : Katie Boulter snatched wiiiiiiiiiigs last week. It was really a great run (defeating Kalinskaya and Gauff) and she looked like she might even defeat Osaka. That kind of quality is necessary, as Kasatkina is pretty efficient during the rally. She doesn’t have any clear holes in her game, and generally plays error free. Her only real struggle is with opponents that have power and Boulter doesn’t really crush the ball. Expect long rallies in this and if I’m being honest I’m not sure what to expect for an outcome. Boulter had a much better week, but Kasatkina is way more established. Boulter should probably lose, but Kasatkina has had some very extended struggles in the past on hardcourt. I’m guessing, but Boulter in 3.
Cornet Savinykh : Cornet is likely to have an edge here. She’s been just average in 2021 but is a very good defender and extends rallies in a manner that new players on tour generally struggle with. She’ll likely find errors from Savinykh but admittedly she is a new commodity and I’m mostly going off her results so far. Cornet in 2 but I’ll be watching most of this one to get an idea baout Savinykh’s game.
Li Zhang : Ann Li has basically surprised everyone this week (and by everyone I mean me). I really liked her game last year, and I find that she moves the ball around the court in a very composed manner and makes good decision as to when to get in to net. I didn’t expect her to beat Cirstea though, and I think that lends itself strongly to her beating Zhang here. Zhang received a 1 and 1 beating from Muchova last week and I don’t think she’s going to turn it around her against a surging talent. Li in 2.
Riske Potapova : Alison Riske hasn’t played since last season, and it’s going to be pretty tough to figure out where her level is given how inconsistent she’s played in the past. A lot of errors and a lot of serving struggles are interspersed with rare stretches where she really lands her shots and is able to overwhelm her opponents. I’m not sure if I put Potapova’s results above hers really. Potapova is the type to win 1 round at every event she goes to, but never multiple matches. Rusty inconsistency against consistent underperforming is a tough one to figure out. I lean Potapova in 3.
Bonaventure Babos : Ysaline is a fine player, but appears on tour a bit less than is really necessary to get up the rankings. This is a good chance in terms of name of opponent, as Babos has had some bad seasons, but not in terms of timing, since Babos is playing her best and most motivated tennis in the past few weeks. Her qualifying run was impressive, and although she lost to Garcia last week she acquitted herself well. Babos in 3.
Begu Stojanovic : Begu was really the most improved player at this week’s warmup events. I don’t see a reason given her quality of play to think that she won’t play a good level this week as well. Stojanovic was pretty convincing beating Sherif, but Begu is a big step up from a defensive qualifier. Begu in two.
Siegemund Williams : Laura Siegemund has really fought nonstop, and her reward is a pretty comfortable ranking on tour for at least a year. There were times where her knee injuries looking like they’d cancel her permanently, but she really is a joy to watch when she’s playing well. This is bad timing to play Serena Williams though. There isn’t really a good time, but her mobility suffered a bit in her return last season and she seemed a bit vulnerable at times. 2021 is here though, and Serena has shed any extra weight she was carrying, and looks very sharp to start the season. It takes a lot of hard training and dieting to do what she did, and there’s reason to believe that she might be able to get that long-sought after major title this year. Her serving looked excellent this past week, and although she withdrew with a shoulder injury, high profile tennis players injury withdrawals are often more opportunistic than tragic. Williams in 2.
Swiatek Rus : Iga Swiatek isn’t really confident on hardcourt yet. A lot of junior standouts get their first real results on clay, and she’s no different. Her talent though is something that won’t really be held back for too much longer. At this point it’s a question of when, not if. Swiatek in 2.
Shvedova Giorgi : Nice to see Yaraslava back on tour,but this is a pretty tough first round. Giorgi is playing pretty well, and should take advantage of Shvedova’s rust. Giorgi in 2.
Ferro Siniakova : Popcorn time. Fiona Ferro’s hardcourt results are night and day from her clay results. During her match with Rogers last week, she basically figured out hardcourt tennis within the match, but couldn’t really stick to the plan. I would expect her team to work on that, and I think that given Siniakova’s streaky play, that Ferro will have a chance to start winning on hc here. On the other side of the fence, Siniakova has lost some matches, but has competed and won against a much higher tier of player than Ferro. She has to sit as a slight favorite, and the question here is similar to Swiatek; when will Ferro put the puzzle pieces together. I expect it to happen in this match. Ferro in 3.
Zvonareva Rybakina : This is a brilliant matchup but unfortunate for whoever loses. Zvonareva served better than she has in a while last week, and her baseline game is always very accomplished. Rybakina is really good enough to win a major already, and the real trouble is just getting through these difficult early rounds. I guess that’s a problem for everyone, but a peaking Zvonareva is a difficult test. Rybakina has to sit as a favorite, but if she starts slowly she’ll lose this match. Still, Rybakina has the talent to withstand Zvonareva’s onslaught and her serving is just as good. Rybakina in 3.
Kudermetova Kostyuk : Kudermetova has a big edge coming into this, having just defeated Kostyuk at the event in Abu Dhabi. Kostyuk has been garnering some very high prices, and is expected to really have an impact on tour soon. The trouble came for her last week with the windy conditions in Melbourne. She’s a very clean ballstriker and needs to be able to commit to her swings. This is an exceptionally tough match to call, and the match in Abu Dhabi was decided by a single break. I think Kostyuk can turn this around, but her performance against Brady wasn’t very inspiring. Someone in 3.
Gracheva Blinkova : Blinkova’s been struggling to notch wins, and Gracheva won their previous meeting. This is another very tight contest, but it’s hard to say that Gracheva doesn’t have a small edge here. Gracheva in 3.
Doi Tomljanovic : Misaki really isn’t the most dominant player but she presents a very difficult test if her opponent lacks power. Ajla Tomljanovic is a great talent but hasn’t really taken the next step on tour. It’s easy to think that her tough results on tour mean she’ll never get there, but she does play some tight matches against most opponents. I think she’ll get a boost from playing at home here, and while Doi is good for a few breaks of serve against most players, Ajla will really just need to keep errors to a minimum to get across the finish line here. Tomljanovic in 3.
Cabrera Halep : Cabrera is a good talent, but I am quite sleepy at this point, so Halep in 2.