or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by anantksundaram

I didn't 'claim' anything. I said it's unlikely. I could most certainly be wrong about that. Go back and reread the post.
I am sure you're a far better astrologer than I am.
Groan. There we go again....If you really think that, just buy a cabin in the mountains, and spare us the angst. You've been steadfastly and shamelessly wrong for six years. But I am sure you'll be 'right' some day, like a broken clock is. But not for the reasons you think.
If you really think that MSFT at a PE ratio of 75x (or 80x or whatever it was) is the same as AAPL at 16x, I sincerely hope -- and I am not at all being snarky or sarcastic here -- that you have someone else doing your investing for you.
There could most certainly be a positive signal. But the market cap depends on whether the price per share increases by more than the quantity of shares decreases. After all, market cap is equal to price times quantity. Also, it depends on how much of the success of AppleWatch and iPhone 6/6+ is already priced into the stock.I have no idea how to predict that. No one else does, either.
Your post is nonsensical. According to you, Apple has power over the telcos because they're a hardware maker, but really because they're a hardware maker that's also a software maker?'Ummm' is right.Btw, hasn't Google been trying to be a hardware maker? Nexus? Glass? GoogleTV? Chrome? Nest? Motorola? Maybe cars? Just to name a few? How come that didn't pan out vis-a-vis power over the telcos?
So, how do you think Apple achieved its hardware 'control,' especially since no hardware maker before or since appears to have done so to the same degree?
There's 'accuracy', and there's accuracy in context. All I meant by 'et. al' was, "Apple][ and others who post with views on politics/society similar to his." If that helps you recalibrate, great. If not, I don't know what to say. It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. In partial jest. Anticipatory statement on how the thread was likely to get hijacked. (And, ironically, it now has been, but for a different reason). I am happy to let it go.
Frankly, no one seems to care much about this, except you who seem to bring it up every opportunity you get. You repeatedly ignore the point that MSFT's PE ratio was ridiculous then, and it was in the midst what is now well-known and well-accepted to be a price bubble. Do you recall what optical networking companies were worth then? A fibre optics company like Corning? Yahoo? Leaving aside such serious companies, do you recall pets.com? Webvan? AOL? As an aside: What do...
Agreed.
New Posts  All Forums: