The 50/50 marked was passed late last year. Given the accelerating trend, and the explosion of netbooks, I think it's conservative to figure 60/40 laptops at this point.
So if Apple were to mirror the PC market in general, they might be able to increase their desktop sales a bit. But, we have no way of knowing if those would be new sales or just a shift from the laptops they're already selling, which doesn't do them any good.
Again, I think it's reasonably conservative to imagine that not all additional desktop sales would add to Apple's bottom line, and a certain percentage would simply be Apple customers that opted for an iMac or Mini over a MacBook or MacBook Pro.
So at 60/40 for the general Market, & 74/26 for Apple, it would take a 2x increase is Desktop sales to get Apple back to the current market...
The 50/50 marked was passed late last year. Given the accelerating trend, and the explosion of netbooks, I think it's conservative to figure 60/40 laptops at this point.
That's a little misleading. Even if your guess were correct and the market were at 60:40, remember that a very large percentage of PC sales are netbooks - a market that Apple doesn't care to participate in. That means the total ELIGIBLE market still wouldn't be higher than 50% laptops - so Apple is selling 1/3 as many desktops (relatively speaking) as the rest of the market.
It is possible that Apple believes that all those 'missing' desktop customers will buy their laptops and maybe they're right. I would personally like to see a mid-range headless desktop Mac, but I have no way of knowing how large that market is. Presumably, Apple has some idea of the size of various markets in making their planning decisions, so I suspect there just aren't that many people like myself.
I'm due for a new computer this fall or winter. Depending on what the new MBPs look like, it will probably be an MBP, so maybe I am typical.
That's a little misleading. Even if your guess were correct and the market were at 60:40, remember that a very large percentage of PC sales are netbooks - a market that Apple doesn't care to participate in. That means the total ELIGIBLE market still wouldn't be higher than 50% laptops - so Apple is selling 1/3 as many desktops (relatively speaking) as the rest of the market.
Apple also doesn?t compete in the cheap computer market segments, where the most units are sold, so unless we discount all of those machines too then I don?t see how it is misleading. They are saturated in the $1000+ market segment and I?m certain we?ll see some slightly cheaper machines to continue their growth, but a cheap tower doesn?t seem likely.
Apple also doesn?t compete in the cheap computer market segments, where the most units are sold, so unless we discount all of those machines too then I don?t see how it is misleading. They are saturated in the $1000+ market segment and I?m certain we?ll see some slightly cheaper machines to continue their growth, but a cheap tower doesn?t seem likely.
Obviously Apple have done their sums, and concluded it doesn't make sense to play in that market segment
- even if it 'feels' like they're missing an opertunity for a few of us...
Apple shipped 787,000 Mac desktops during the fourth quarter of 2009, amounting to $1.086 billion in revenue. That was a 20 percent decline in revenue for the desktop business compared to a year prior, with 16 percent fewer machines sold.
But the portable business boomed, with 35 percent growth in sales and 27 percent growth in revenue. That equated to sales of 2.266 million Mac laptops generated $2.866 billion in revenue.
Their laptops are good.
But the desktops represent horrendous value for money. Skewed. Simple.
Price cuts. Non premium components that give less value and performance for money would tap into substantial desktop sales. The desktop market is substantial despite what the mad-heads on here would have you believe.
We'll see what Apple does re: desktops re: cheaper pricing and more competitive models or any new model added. With 3 million in sales. It MIGHT happen. Not holding breath.
But any prizes to anyone who thinks desktop sales may rebound when Apple offers cheaper more competitively performing ones? Well duh. Quad core iMacs? Yes please.
The desktop market is substantial despite what the mad-heads on here would have you believe.
According to the chart in the link below, the US PC desktop market reached its per unit peak in 2006, with projected declines for the world to follow suit. We?ll have to check out other vendors to see if they declined in desktop sales and by how much.
Personally, the most impressive part of the earnings was the Mac side of the story, where growth is outpacing the rest of the market handily 17% to 2%.
Plus, when you understand how much of that growth is coming from Portables, you understand why the Tablet is inevitable, something that I blogged about in:
The Right Stuff: Analysis of Apple?s Q4 Earnings Call
The market isn't totally irrational either, or what happens would be totally random,
I've done pretty well over the years in spotting trends in the one industry I know really well, and I don't stray too far from it.
Rationality does take over at some macro scale, but a lot of virtual randomness occurs in between. As the old saying goes, markets trade up on greed and down on fear. Both are emotional, not rational, reactions. Buying what you know and understand is always a good plan -- but still, trying to predict the market on any given day, week, month or even year, is a fool's errand.
Rationality does take over at some macro scale, but a lot of virtual randomness occurs in between. As the old saying goes, markets trade up on greed and down on fear. Both are emotional, not rational, reactions. Buying what you know and understand is always a good plan -- but still, trying to predict the market on any given day, week, month or even year, is a fool's errand.
That's why, except for the '90's, I haven't done that.
That's why, except for the '90's, I haven't done that.
Yes, I think a lot of us learned the hard way during that time period.
FWIW... AAPL still has never closed above 200. The last after hours trade yesterday was at around 202, it opened this morning at 200.47, traded just shy of 200 most of the day, and closed today at 198.76. I'm not complaining mind you, but it is interesting how much resistance the markets have to pushing this stock beyond that 200 mark.
That's a little misleading. Even if your guess were correct and the market were at 60:40, remember that a very large percentage of PC sales are netbooks - a market that Apple doesn't care to participate in. That means the total ELIGIBLE market still wouldn't be higher than 50% laptops - so Apple is selling 1/3 as many desktops (relatively speaking) as the rest of the market.
Look, the market for desktops, is the market for desktops. It's a finite number. The number of desktops doesn't magically get LARGER just because you want to start NOT counting netbooks. Sheesh!
Accidentally, you did manage to get one thing right, and that's calling the market an "eligible market".
Yes, I think a lot of us learned the hard way during that time period.
FWIW... AAPL still has never closed above 200. The last after hours trade yesterday was at around 202, it opened this morning at 200.47, traded just shy of 200 most of the day, and closed today at 198.76. I'm not complaining mind you, but it is interesting how much resistance the markets have to pushing this stock beyond that 200 mark.
I understand why it didn't go further back then.
A few of us here were arguing, early in 2008, that we were in a recession, but some people said we were nuts, and that until it was officially announced, it wasn't a recession, and that everything was fine, blah blah.
Of course, the recession, as we found out later, began late in 2007, so we were right after all.
If you look at this sales chart for Apple, you can see how sales tracked the recession perfectly, and why the stock rose to where it did, and why it started dropping when it did.
You can also see the previous drops.
You can also see why it's rising the way it is now. Makes perfect sense. No mystery.
You never know, officially, that a recession is underway until after the fact -- simply because it's most commonly defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Likewise it's difficult to argue that one has ended until well after it has already ended. Of course on the flip side, lots of people seemed overly prepared to declare this recession a "depression" -- even some who should understand the distinction between the two.
I wouldn't use a chart of Mac sales to plot Apple's revenue growth, since it's not the Mac which has been primarily driving revenues over the past couple of years. Have we seen a recent quarter when Apple did not report EPS growth in healthy double digits, even in the midst of the recession? I don't recall one. The truth is, in stock market panics everything gets thrown overboard eventually, the good with the bad. This isn't rational behavior, it's herd mentality. This human trait is why so many people find themselves buying high and selling low.
You never know, officially, that a recession is underway until after the fact -- simply because it's most commonly defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Likewise it's difficult to argue that one has ended until well after it has already ended. Of course on the flip side, lots of people seemed overly prepared to declare this recession a "depression" -- even some who should understand the distinction between the two.
You don't need to see the official numbers. It was pretty obvious to me and a few others here that we were in a recession back in February 2008. Of course, we can wait for it be be called, officially, a recession. But by then, it's too late, everything's down. Since late in 2008, we were told that the recession started in late 2007, by the time we reported it in february, we had had two quarters of it already pretty much.
Besides, why do you need someone to give you official figures when you can tell for yourself?
Quote:
I wouldn't use a chart of Mac sales to plot Apple's revenue growth, since it's not the Mac which has been primarily driving revenues over the past couple of years. Have we seen a recent quarter when Apple did not report EPS growth in healthy double digits, even in the midst of the recession? I don't recall one. The truth is, in stock market panics everything gets thrown overboard eventually, the good with the bad. This isn't rational behavior, it's herd mentality. This human trait is why so many people find themselves buying high and selling low.
That chart compares Apples growth in sales compared to the PC industry, something investors seem to care about, as do we here.
For that, it serves a purpose, and it does track Apple's stock price pretty well.
You don't need to see the official numbers. It was pretty obvious to me and a few others here that we were in a recession back in February 2008. Of course, we can wait for it be be called, officially, a recession. But by then, it's too late, everything's down. Since late in 2008, we were told that the recession started in late 2007, by the time we reported it in february, we had had two quarters of it already pretty much.
Besides, why do you need someone to give you official figures when you can tell for yourself
I'm not stuck on "official" measurements (of which there are several), but how exactly do you tell, by yourself?
Quote:
That chart compares Apples growth in sales compared to the PC industry, something investors seem to care about, as do we here.
For that, it serves a purpose, and it does track Apple's stock price pretty well.
Sure, we care about it -- but it doesn't really predict revenues for the company, so I'd say it's more coincidental than useful as a forecast model. Of course given the inherent perversities of the markets, coincidence can be more useful than reality if enough people believe in it.
I'm not stuck on "official" measurements (of which there are several), but how exactly do you tell, by yourself?
I track trends in shipping companies, suppliers sales, and other areas that tend to lead the economy. These show changes several months before the economy sees it openly.
Quote:
Sure, we care about it -- but it doesn't really predict revenues for the company, so I'd say it's more coincidental than useful as a forecast model. Of course given the inherent perversities of the markets, coincidence can be more useful than reality if enough people believe in it.
Revenues don't always tell the tale. Look at MS's stock since 2000. It's expectations that fuel a stocks price. And that has also to do with the comparison between its performance, and the performance of the general industry it's in.
If the industry went down by 15%, and Apple stayed flat, then the stock would also have shot up, because its performance would have been so much better.
Sure, it's expectations that fuel stock prices -- expectations of earnings growth. Apple's performance in this regard did outstrip the industry, but the stock price fell 60% anyway. I'd like to see a chart that plots P/E over time, and compare companies in various industries that way. Might be interesting to see how they performed in terms of relative expectations.
Rationality does take over at some macro scale, but a lot of virtual randomness occurs in between. As the old saying goes, markets trade up on greed and down on fear. Both are emotional, not rational, reactions. Buying what you know and understand is always a good plan -- but still, trying to predict the market on any given day, week, month or even year, is a fool's errand.
Slight elaboration: Actually the bubble phase of markets is driven by quick buck greed (and not greed in the Ayn Rand sense of rational self-interest) and by all the late pilers in to the latest tulip-bulb-prices-(or dot.coms or derivatives of derivatives)-will-grow-to-the-sky mania, but the saying is that even sound bull markets "climb a wall of worry," i.e., the successful investors know (in the long run, yes, and not during any day, month or year) how and when to fight their fear to feed their greed. Further, markets tend to overcorrect in a fall and the savvy traders (again over time) have already started bargain hunting even as the chicken littles are still fleeing in droves, establishing themselves for the next leg up.
Which, thank heavens, until now and hopefully for long to come, has always arrived eventually.
Case study: Warren Buffett.
I don't buy individual stocks or bonds, but after 30 years of investing, if I had to choose one for the long term, i.e., make a bet 10 or more years out, even granting the succession issues looming at some point, and the fluidity of evolving technology markets, I would probably choose AAPL despite its inherent volatility. They're quite the outfit, own and/or master an iconic stable of foundational technologies, expertise, creativity, good consumer will, unprecedented buzz and actual business sense, and will reflect the brilliant team that resurrected them for a good long while.
They could lose their way, could lose their nimbleness in their sheer growing size, get mired like MS in an increasingly growing base of legacy devices and code, etc. But I wouldn't bet agin 'em when taken head to head with any other company I can think of.
Compared to Apple, for example, both MS and Google are basically one cash cow companies. MS is Win, Office and Server - all vulnerable on multiple fronts and Google is AdSense. Google lapped the existing means of delivering advertising. Which means, although they're driving hard and have major research chops, someone else could lap them. When all your revenue comes from one product (they're giving away everything else to spread that product) your profitability, share value and capacity to grow yourself is at-risk if you lose even a few percentage points of share, and people are going to keep probing for soft spots in your strategy.
While who would have thought Apple Computer (remember them?) would go from a struggling box maker with zero experience in the music biz, to being the world's largest music seller in just a few years? Or that they could capture such mind share and design dominance in the phone market in even less? That people would be lining up for days outside of physical Apple retail stores? That they would own an astounding percentage of the over $1000 personal computing market and be closing in on double digit US market share? Would build native Exchange into their OS before MS did? Would account for an inordinate share of photo and video uploads? Would go from zero to billions of sales in their mobile App store in the blink of an eye? Would be a major contributor to key open source technologies with good relations in that community? Would not only switch to Intel CPU's, but render the word "Wintel" null and void? Would own their own custom fab? Would go from Greenpeace pariah to ranking reasonably well on green lists?
Sure there are niggling miscues, questionable design, tactical and occasionally strategic decisions now and again, and challenges from many other creative savvy companies, but Apple, Inc. is a diverse, vibrant, well-run, well-positioned modern corporate machine firing on all cylinders.
Even if they continue to withhold the deserved gift of a headless mid-tower mac for the long-clamoring faithful of moderate means in favor of chasing rapidly growing markets.
Comments
The 50/50 marked was passed late last year. Given the accelerating trend, and the explosion of netbooks, I think it's conservative to figure 60/40 laptops at this point.
So if Apple were to mirror the PC market in general, they might be able to increase their desktop sales a bit. But, we have no way of knowing if those would be new sales or just a shift from the laptops they're already selling, which doesn't do them any good.
Again, I think it's reasonably conservative to imagine that not all additional desktop sales would add to Apple's bottom line, and a certain percentage would simply be Apple customers that opted for an iMac or Mini over a MacBook or MacBook Pro.
So at 60/40 for the general Market, & 74/26 for Apple, it would take a 2x increase is Desktop sales to get Apple back to the current market...
This report on Yahoo, from mid-2009, says 54/46
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/146551
- corresponds to a 2.5x increase..
ok, there would be some cannibilisation, but how much?
Personally, I would get a single socket Core i7 from Apple if they did one
- but at the moment, I'll just get a Windows7 PC (argh!)
The 50/50 marked was passed late last year. Given the accelerating trend, and the explosion of netbooks, I think it's conservative to figure 60/40 laptops at this point.
That's a little misleading. Even if your guess were correct and the market were at 60:40, remember that a very large percentage of PC sales are netbooks - a market that Apple doesn't care to participate in. That means the total ELIGIBLE market still wouldn't be higher than 50% laptops - so Apple is selling 1/3 as many desktops (relatively speaking) as the rest of the market.
It is possible that Apple believes that all those 'missing' desktop customers will buy their laptops and maybe they're right. I would personally like to see a mid-range headless desktop Mac, but I have no way of knowing how large that market is. Presumably, Apple has some idea of the size of various markets in making their planning decisions, so I suspect there just aren't that many people like myself.
I'm due for a new computer this fall or winter. Depending on what the new MBPs look like, it will probably be an MBP, so maybe I am typical.
That's a little misleading. Even if your guess were correct and the market were at 60:40, remember that a very large percentage of PC sales are netbooks - a market that Apple doesn't care to participate in. That means the total ELIGIBLE market still wouldn't be higher than 50% laptops - so Apple is selling 1/3 as many desktops (relatively speaking) as the rest of the market.
Apple also doesn?t compete in the cheap computer market segments, where the most units are sold, so unless we discount all of those machines too then I don?t see how it is misleading. They are saturated in the $1000+ market segment and I?m certain we?ll see some slightly cheaper machines to continue their growth, but a cheap tower doesn?t seem likely.
Apple also doesn?t compete in the cheap computer market segments, where the most units are sold, so unless we discount all of those machines too then I don?t see how it is misleading. They are saturated in the $1000+ market segment and I?m certain we?ll see some slightly cheaper machines to continue their growth, but a cheap tower doesn?t seem likely.
Obviously Apple have done their sums, and concluded it doesn't make sense to play in that market segment
- even if it 'feels' like they're missing an opertunity for a few of us...
Apple shipped 787,000 Mac desktops during the fourth quarter of 2009, amounting to $1.086 billion in revenue. That was a 20 percent decline in revenue for the desktop business compared to a year prior, with 16 percent fewer machines sold.
But the portable business boomed, with 35 percent growth in sales and 27 percent growth in revenue. That equated to sales of 2.266 million Mac laptops generated $2.866 billion in revenue.
Their laptops are good.
But the desktops represent horrendous value for money. Skewed. Simple.
Price cuts. Non premium components that give less value and performance for money would tap into substantial desktop sales. The desktop market is substantial despite what the mad-heads on here would have you believe.
We'll see what Apple does re: desktops re: cheaper pricing and more competitive models or any new model added. With 3 million in sales. It MIGHT happen. Not holding breath.
But any prizes to anyone who thinks desktop sales may rebound when Apple offers cheaper more competitively performing ones? Well duh. Quad core iMacs? Yes please.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The desktop market is substantial despite what the mad-heads on here would have you believe.
According to the chart in the link below, the US PC desktop market reached its per unit peak in 2006, with projected declines for the world to follow suit. We?ll have to check out other vendors to see if they declined in desktop sales and by how much.
The market isn't totally irrational either, or what happens would be totally random,
I've done pretty well over the years in spotting trends in the one industry I know really well, and I don't stray too far from it.
Same here. If I were to stray from that which I know and understand I might as well go to Vegas (I will add
Personally, the most impressive part of the earnings was the Mac side of the story, where growth is outpacing the rest of the market handily 17% to 2%.
Plus, when you understand how much of that growth is coming from Portables, you understand why the Tablet is inevitable, something that I blogged about in:
The Right Stuff: Analysis of Apple?s Q4 Earnings Call
http://bit.ly/RJAPA
Check it out, if interested.
Mark
Nice blog
The market isn't totally irrational either, or what happens would be totally random,
I've done pretty well over the years in spotting trends in the one industry I know really well, and I don't stray too far from it.
Rationality does take over at some macro scale, but a lot of virtual randomness occurs in between. As the old saying goes, markets trade up on greed and down on fear. Both are emotional, not rational, reactions. Buying what you know and understand is always a good plan -- but still, trying to predict the market on any given day, week, month or even year, is a fool's errand.
Rationality does take over at some macro scale, but a lot of virtual randomness occurs in between. As the old saying goes, markets trade up on greed and down on fear. Both are emotional, not rational, reactions. Buying what you know and understand is always a good plan -- but still, trying to predict the market on any given day, week, month or even year, is a fool's errand.
That's why, except for the '90's, I haven't done that.
That's why, except for the '90's, I haven't done that.
Yes, I think a lot of us learned the hard way during that time period.
FWIW... AAPL still has never closed above 200. The last after hours trade yesterday was at around 202, it opened this morning at 200.47, traded just shy of 200 most of the day, and closed today at 198.76. I'm not complaining mind you, but it is interesting how much resistance the markets have to pushing this stock beyond that 200 mark.
That's a little misleading. Even if your guess were correct and the market were at 60:40, remember that a very large percentage of PC sales are netbooks - a market that Apple doesn't care to participate in. That means the total ELIGIBLE market still wouldn't be higher than 50% laptops - so Apple is selling 1/3 as many desktops (relatively speaking) as the rest of the market.
Look, the market for desktops, is the market for desktops. It's a finite number. The number of desktops doesn't magically get LARGER just because you want to start NOT counting netbooks. Sheesh!
Accidentally, you did manage to get one thing right, and that's calling the market an "eligible market".
You have the desktop market... which includes:
The desktop Windows corporate IT market.
The desktop PC gamers market.
The desktop AIO market
The desktop PC tower > $600 market
The desktop PC tower < $600 market
The 'don't give a damn what OS' desktop market.
The 'I can build it myself" desktop market
The "Macs are just toys" desktop market.
etc etc.
How's that ELIGIBLE market looking now?
Yes, I think a lot of us learned the hard way during that time period.
FWIW... AAPL still has never closed above 200. The last after hours trade yesterday was at around 202, it opened this morning at 200.47, traded just shy of 200 most of the day, and closed today at 198.76. I'm not complaining mind you, but it is interesting how much resistance the markets have to pushing this stock beyond that 200 mark.
I understand why it didn't go further back then.
A few of us here were arguing, early in 2008, that we were in a recession, but some people said we were nuts, and that until it was officially announced, it wasn't a recession, and that everything was fine, blah blah.
Of course, the recession, as we found out later, began late in 2007, so we were right after all.
If you look at this sales chart for Apple, you can see how sales tracked the recession perfectly, and why the stock rose to where it did, and why it started dropping when it did.
You can also see the previous drops.
You can also see why it's rising the way it is now. Makes perfect sense. No mystery.
http://link.businessinsider.com/view/8cu.769/b7ce5e33
In addition, the reason why the stock pulled back a tiny bit today is this:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/20/bri...partner=alerts
I wouldn't use a chart of Mac sales to plot Apple's revenue growth, since it's not the Mac which has been primarily driving revenues over the past couple of years. Have we seen a recent quarter when Apple did not report EPS growth in healthy double digits, even in the midst of the recession? I don't recall one. The truth is, in stock market panics everything gets thrown overboard eventually, the good with the bad. This isn't rational behavior, it's herd mentality. This human trait is why so many people find themselves buying high and selling low.
You never know, officially, that a recession is underway until after the fact -- simply because it's most commonly defined by two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Likewise it's difficult to argue that one has ended until well after it has already ended. Of course on the flip side, lots of people seemed overly prepared to declare this recession a "depression" -- even some who should understand the distinction between the two.
You don't need to see the official numbers. It was pretty obvious to me and a few others here that we were in a recession back in February 2008. Of course, we can wait for it be be called, officially, a recession. But by then, it's too late, everything's down. Since late in 2008, we were told that the recession started in late 2007, by the time we reported it in february, we had had two quarters of it already pretty much.
Besides, why do you need someone to give you official figures when you can tell for yourself?
I wouldn't use a chart of Mac sales to plot Apple's revenue growth, since it's not the Mac which has been primarily driving revenues over the past couple of years. Have we seen a recent quarter when Apple did not report EPS growth in healthy double digits, even in the midst of the recession? I don't recall one. The truth is, in stock market panics everything gets thrown overboard eventually, the good with the bad. This isn't rational behavior, it's herd mentality. This human trait is why so many people find themselves buying high and selling low.
That chart compares Apples growth in sales compared to the PC industry, something investors seem to care about, as do we here.
For that, it serves a purpose, and it does track Apple's stock price pretty well.
You don't need to see the official numbers. It was pretty obvious to me and a few others here that we were in a recession back in February 2008. Of course, we can wait for it be be called, officially, a recession. But by then, it's too late, everything's down. Since late in 2008, we were told that the recession started in late 2007, by the time we reported it in february, we had had two quarters of it already pretty much.
Besides, why do you need someone to give you official figures when you can tell for yourself
I'm not stuck on "official" measurements (of which there are several), but how exactly do you tell, by yourself?
That chart compares Apples growth in sales compared to the PC industry, something investors seem to care about, as do we here.
For that, it serves a purpose, and it does track Apple's stock price pretty well.
Sure, we care about it -- but it doesn't really predict revenues for the company, so I'd say it's more coincidental than useful as a forecast model. Of course given the inherent perversities of the markets, coincidence can be more useful than reality if enough people believe in it.
I'm not stuck on "official" measurements (of which there are several), but how exactly do you tell, by yourself?
I track trends in shipping companies, suppliers sales, and other areas that tend to lead the economy. These show changes several months before the economy sees it openly.
Sure, we care about it -- but it doesn't really predict revenues for the company, so I'd say it's more coincidental than useful as a forecast model. Of course given the inherent perversities of the markets, coincidence can be more useful than reality if enough people believe in it.
Revenues don't always tell the tale. Look at MS's stock since 2000. It's expectations that fuel a stocks price. And that has also to do with the comparison between its performance, and the performance of the general industry it's in.
If the industry went down by 15%, and Apple stayed flat, then the stock would also have shot up, because its performance would have been so much better.
A lot of things are relative.
Rationality does take over at some macro scale, but a lot of virtual randomness occurs in between. As the old saying goes, markets trade up on greed and down on fear. Both are emotional, not rational, reactions. Buying what you know and understand is always a good plan -- but still, trying to predict the market on any given day, week, month or even year, is a fool's errand.
Slight elaboration: Actually the bubble phase of markets is driven by quick buck greed (and not greed in the Ayn Rand sense of rational self-interest) and by all the late pilers in to the latest tulip-bulb-prices-(or dot.coms or derivatives of derivatives)-will-grow-to-the-sky mania, but the saying is that even sound bull markets "climb a wall of worry," i.e., the successful investors know (in the long run, yes, and not during any day, month or year) how and when to fight their fear to feed their greed. Further, markets tend to overcorrect in a fall and the savvy traders (again over time) have already started bargain hunting even as the chicken littles are still fleeing in droves, establishing themselves for the next leg up.
Which, thank heavens, until now and hopefully for long to come, has always arrived eventually.
Case study: Warren Buffett.
I don't buy individual stocks or bonds, but after 30 years of investing, if I had to choose one for the long term, i.e., make a bet 10 or more years out, even granting the succession issues looming at some point, and the fluidity of evolving technology markets, I would probably choose AAPL despite its inherent volatility. They're quite the outfit, own and/or master an iconic stable of foundational technologies, expertise, creativity, good consumer will, unprecedented buzz and actual business sense, and will reflect the brilliant team that resurrected them for a good long while.
They could lose their way, could lose their nimbleness in their sheer growing size, get mired like MS in an increasingly growing base of legacy devices and code, etc. But I wouldn't bet agin 'em when taken head to head with any other company I can think of.
Compared to Apple, for example, both MS and Google are basically one cash cow companies. MS is Win, Office and Server - all vulnerable on multiple fronts and Google is AdSense. Google lapped the existing means of delivering advertising. Which means, although they're driving hard and have major research chops, someone else could lap them. When all your revenue comes from one product (they're giving away everything else to spread that product) your profitability, share value and capacity to grow yourself is at-risk if you lose even a few percentage points of share, and people are going to keep probing for soft spots in your strategy.
While who would have thought Apple Computer (remember them?) would go from a struggling box maker with zero experience in the music biz, to being the world's largest music seller in just a few years? Or that they could capture such mind share and design dominance in the phone market in even less? That people would be lining up for days outside of physical Apple retail stores? That they would own an astounding percentage of the over $1000 personal computing market and be closing in on double digit US market share? Would build native Exchange into their OS before MS did? Would account for an inordinate share of photo and video uploads? Would go from zero to billions of sales in their mobile App store in the blink of an eye? Would be a major contributor to key open source technologies with good relations in that community? Would not only switch to Intel CPU's, but render the word "Wintel" null and void? Would own their own custom fab? Would go from Greenpeace pariah to ranking reasonably well on green lists?
Sure there are niggling miscues, questionable design, tactical and occasionally strategic decisions now and again, and challenges from many other creative savvy companies, but Apple, Inc. is a diverse, vibrant, well-run, well-positioned modern corporate machine firing on all cylinders.
Even if they continue to withhold the deserved gift of a headless mid-tower mac for the long-clamoring faithful of moderate means in favor of chasing rapidly growing markets.