or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Retrogusto

Yeah, except he famously said that "good artists copy and great artists steal." He stole his cubism from Braque, his sculpture from Gonzales, etc. but he did it very well.
That wasnt the point. If you look again, you should see that it was a response to Rogifan's claim that "Tim Cook's viewpoint is NOT the majority viewpoint by a long shot. It's only a majority view point in the media, pop culture and tech echo chamber"
The dollar has recently gotten very strong against the euro--one euro is now worth $1.05, compared to $1.38 a year ago today, but all of their Euro-zone profits are made in euros and then converted to dollars when they report their earnings. In other words, if their profits are up ~30% in the euro zone, they will end up being flat once the numbers are converted to USD to report their earnings, anything less and they will be "down" year-over-year. It also makes pricing...
I was thinking that too--maybe they've been following the auctions for Apple I in recent years and feeling like their first-gen products are underpriced! It may in fact be a good investment, especially if you don't actually use it. But otherwise, it does seem odd to compare this to something like a Rolex, that's not mass-produced in China (although granted the gold case itself probably won't be made in large numbers), not going to be rendered "obsolete" by a more...
When you boil it down, the watch seems to serve two primary functional categories: it allows you to not take your phone out of your pocket (facilitates things that you could do with your phone anyway), and it does some body-related monitoring (which your phone can't do because it's not strapped to your wrist). If the battery were to die mid-day, you could still do everything in the former category (e.g. check the time on your phone), but not the latter. So it seems like...
I hope they allow Google to renew, but at a higher price, and then buy DDG to get a head start in the space themselves for future incorporation into iOS and Mac OS.
I didn't choose those four names, the article did, claiming that those four companies had P/E ratios that were "in line" with the P/E of 15 predicted for Apple. All I'm doing is putting numbers to the names to show how it's not true, either separately or as a group average. Either of my previous numbers proves my point, but I can elaborate: Google has a P/E of 28.18, which I'm sure you will agree is also significantly higher than 15. Oracle (18.39) and Microsoft (17.71)...
 The average P/E of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Oracle is 34.64, which is more than double the 15 that she is assuming for Apple. I'm not saying that 15 is unrealistic given the market's history of undervaluing Apple, but it's hardly "in line" with those other firms--in fact, all of them are above 15, and Facebook's is 74.69.
Dude. They should totally get Ellen Feiss to endorse this.
Many of Apple's competitors have worse margins than GM or Ford.
New Posts  All Forums: