This article suggests iPad sales are surging at least on Black Friday.
And yet IDC is proclaiming today that iPads will falter and lose ground in their sad unwinnable war against Android tablets.
Is the iPad surging or souring? Storming the castle or retreating to the woods?
My guess is that the iPad will increase both sales and market share in 2014 at Android's expense.
I also predict that the Android numbers are grossly even illegally exaggerated.
When you include TV dongles running Android that reactivate every two minutes and who knows what else in the 'free in a Christmas Cracker' category those huge Android activation numbers are probably really genuine ...
Now let this be a lesson to all you kids out there. Never shoot from the hip until you have sat down and reflected upon a poster's entry.
Of course there are exceptions to this, like:
1) Zombie apocalypse is among us, then go ahead, shoot from the hip
2) Answering to someone, anyone, on ZDNet. Definitely go ahead and shoot from the hip.
Further proof that Apple is doomed. If I don't see actual figures, it didn't happen.
Only Jeff Bezos can get away with telling everyone that Amazon sold a boatload of Kindles and no one will dare to second-guess him. Investors and Wall Street believe everything that Jeff Bezos says. If Tim Cook said something like that he'd be called a liar and every analyst would be out to prove Tim Cook wrong. With Jeff Bezos there is never any doubt whatsoever and the share price will climb straight up. All the analysts and news media will just say that Jeff Bezos is a genius who is never wrong. That's real investor confidence. Apple investors have no confidence at all.
Oh, please shut the **** up. You're the worst of these "investors with no confidence" you're slamming, with your incessant rants calling for Cook's head and wanting to get him ousted. You agree the sentiment is irrational, then at the same price you put 100% blame on Cook for the stock price,etc, as if he has 100% control over it, and shitting on him with the utmost venom You make no fucking sense.
There is no such thing as an "Apple" investor. Everyone is also simultaneously invested in lots of other assets, including houses, other stocks, bonds, mutual funds, retirement funds etc.
In other words, the premise of your post is that an investor somehow behaves differently with one part of their portfolio compared to the other parts of their portfolio. That is nonsensical. Please stop.
Anantksundarum, ... Taking everything you read literally does not always lead to a conducive outcome.
For example: “There is no such thing as an "Apple" investor” .... No? What else would you call anyone who owns one or more shares in Apple ... A Samsung investor?
You say: “Everyone is also simultaneously invested in lots of other assets” .... I say: Not necessarily, maybe I rent and don’t have any another investments, just 10,000 shares of Apple.
You say: “the premise of your post is that an investor somehow behaves differently with one part of their portfolio compared to the other parts of their portfolio. That is nonsensical. Please stop.” .... I say: It is very unlikely that people who buy a house use the same “research” to buy shares in apple.
Although I hardly ever agree with Constable Odo, in this post, at least, he makes a few salient points. I think a lot of “Apple investors” get their investing advice from analysts and other advisors and that most of those people are hugely biased by what they read or hear about Apple from the web or TV .... Not a “best case scenario”, I agree, but it is what it is. Therefore, it stands to reason that a lot of the “noise” about Apple does affect Apple stock price because, as we know, even if we tell a lie, if it gets repeated often enough, it “becomes” the truth.
Anantksundarum, reading between the lines can sometimes be very helpful at seeing the true message, right?
I say: Not necessarily, maybe I rent and don’t have any another investments, just 10,000 shares of Apple.
As an empirical matter, I seriously doubt that any such -- or more than a few such -- investors exist. (As an aside, if they do, they deserve all the investing pain they get for willfully being so under-diversified -- that is just par for the course.)
Even if many such people exist, I doubt that those are the marginal -- as opposed to the average -- investors that regularly trade AAPL and thus move prices. Most of the trading volume is due to institutions (incl. HFs and HFTs) who are invested in far more than just AAPL.
But you're certainly welcome to believe otherwise.
I was half expecting to see a bump in 5c sales as they are the perfect holiday
gift for grand kids.
It's still early yet. If a kid has a phone now then how is one going to explain why their current phone is no longer active unless the iPhone is bought at full retail and even then some carriers make it mandatory to activate right there and then.
That's because you fanbois don't understand innovation.
Jeff just innovates stuff out of his head. To hell with profits or actual sales numbers. We buy books at $10 a piece and sell them back to you at $9 a piece. That's pure innovation right there. And just you wait and see. Pretty soon, like in 5 to 8 years into the future, Amazon drone multicopters will be flying the city streets and dropping packages on your heads. I just splurged my future vapor like plans onto everybody and you're all supposed to kneel before me, especially Wall Street. That's innovation my friend.
When was the last time Apple innovated anything? Was it 1984? Because everyone knows that touch screens, smartphones and tablets existed way before Apple decided to get into the game.
That's because you fanbois don't understand innovation.
Jeff just innovates stuff out of his head. To hell with profits or actual sales numbers. We buy books at $10 a piece and sell them back to you at $9 a piece. That's pure innovation right there. And just you wait and see. Pretty soon, like in 5 to 8 years into the future, Amazon drone multicopters will be flying the city streets and dropping packages on your heads. I just splurged my future vapor like plans onto everybody and you're all supposed to kneel before me, especially Wall Street. That's innovation my friend.
When was the last time Apple innovated anything? Was it 1984? Because everyone knows that touch screens, smartphones and tablets existed way before Apple decided to get into the game.
Exactly. Not much innovation from Apple after SJ. It's so obvious with the ipad mini. First generation no retina display because Apple wanted to keep it as a feature for the 2nd generation. Then the 2nd generation has sub-standard color problem because it'll be "improved" with the 3rd generation and then consumer may get the touch id with the 4th generation...
$99 (5c) and free (4s) aren't identical. Then there's the issue that the 4s is a great looking phone while the 5c appeals to a different aesthetic (something I applaud BTW, nice to widen a line's appeal).
The article is referencing black friday- in which case, both the 5c and 4s were free- also known as, identical pricing.
First point: ... You need to realize Wall Street can be stupid and inefficent in the short term. They are blinded by their own greed and fear.
Second point: ... So why does Amazon/Google get the benefit of the doubt? Check out their institutional ownership and insider ownership percentages.
Google 87%
Amazon 87%
Apple 62%
Final point: Bottom line is the public was much smarter about Apple than Wall Street.
The only thing I disagree with you on your first point is the "short term" .... Wall Street can be stupid in the long term as well. However, remember "Wall Street" is made up of small investors as well as institutional investors and, for the most part, the institutional investor is more well versed in playing the "stock market game", and to forget that it is, indeed, a game is to do so at your own peril, .... and I'd be more than willing to bet that the people who are making the institutional trade made off better than the millions of small shareholders who tend to buy or sell "for all the wrong reasons".
Second point: Those figures tell me that Google and Amazon are both better than Apple than selling H & N (hype & noise). Google hypes "moonshots", i.e. driverless cars and such, to make up for the crap that they give away ... while Bozo, oops, Bezos goes on TV to hype driverless delivery "vehicles" to keep his "ponzi scheme" of a company "alive and well". .... and as we all know, Apple "only" sells the "best in class" hardware and software in the computing industry. I ask you, where's the "magic" in that ? /s
Final point: Sorry, I have to strongly disagree here as I firmly believe that the "public" is at a huge disadvantage at playing the stock market game for the simple reason that they don't know all of the rules and whenever it looks like they are starting to "figure it out" the powers to be change them and keep that knowledge to themselves .... until they need another bailout, at least. ... Not sarcasm!
The article is referencing black friday- in which case, both the 5c and 4s were free- also known as, identical pricing.
The article is where I got those prices, the direct quotes:
"with the iPhone 5c selling for $99 with a new two-year service contract"
and
"Rounding out the top Apple devices tracked by the firm was the iPhone 4S, which saw its weekend traffic grow 10 percent after black Friday. The iPhone 4S is available for free with a two-year cellular contract."
As an empirical matter, I seriously doubt that any such -- or more than a few such -- investors exist. (As an aside, if they do, they deserve all the investing pain they get for willfully being so under-diversified -- that is just par for the course.)
Even if many such people exist, I doubt that those are the marginal -- as opposed to the average -- investors that regularly trade AAPL and thus move prices. Most of the trading volume is due to institutions (incl. HFs and HFTs) who are invested in far more than just AAPL.
But you're certainly welcome to believe otherwise.
Well, that's one of my three examples of your taking things too literally (in a post "taking a shot" at Counstable Odo) explained, or not .... care to have a go at the other two?
Exactly. Not much innovation from Apple after SJ. It's so obvious with the ipad mini. First generation no retina display because Apple wanted to keep it as a feature for the 2nd generation. Then the 2nd generation has sub-standard color problem because it'll be "improved" with the 3rd generation and then consumer may get the touch id with the 4th generation...
The display of the 2nd gen iPad Mini is not sub-standard. Tests show it is worse than the Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) used in Kindle Fire HDX and Nexus 7. LTPS is maybe the best technology commercially available, but the production is seriously limited. No one can provide the necessary quantities for Apple, and so they went with IGZO (which is again constrained, but not as bad as LTPS).
Can you make the distinction between "not being the best" and "sub-standard"? When did LTPS become THE STANDARD?
Exactly. Not much innovation from Apple after SJ. It's so obvious with the ipad mini. First generation no retina display because Apple wanted to keep it as a feature for the 2nd generation. Then the 2nd generation has sub-standard color problem because it'll be "improved" with the 3rd generation and then consumer may get the touch id with the 4th generation...
I thought that my post was so outrageous that including sarcasm tags would be like stating the very obvious.
However, you my friend, I have trouble reading. Even if 1% of your post is serious, then may I nominate you for the "born yesterday internet award".
Comments
When you include TV dongles running Android that reactivate every two minutes and who knows what else in the 'free in a Christmas Cracker' category those huge Android activation numbers are probably really genuine ...
Whoops, sorry. This was so believable that I went and reported it. Have a thumb in apology.
Now let this be a lesson to all you kids out there. Never shoot from the hip until you have sat down and reflected upon a poster's entry.
Of course there are exceptions to this, like:
1) Zombie apocalypse is among us, then go ahead, shoot from the hip
2) Answering to someone, anyone, on ZDNet. Definitely go ahead and shoot from the hip.
Welcome to AI and you'd better learn who are the resident clowns quickly if you want to stay safe
Every time I try that I blow a toe off!
Further proof that Apple is doomed. If I don't see actual figures, it didn't happen.
Only Jeff Bezos can get away with telling everyone that Amazon sold a boatload of Kindles and no one will dare to second-guess him. Investors and Wall Street believe everything that Jeff Bezos says. If Tim Cook said something like that he'd be called a liar and every analyst would be out to prove Tim Cook wrong. With Jeff Bezos there is never any doubt whatsoever and the share price will climb straight up. All the analysts and news media will just say that Jeff Bezos is a genius who is never wrong. That's real investor confidence. Apple investors have no confidence at all.
Oh, please shut the **** up. You're the worst of these "investors with no confidence" you're slamming, with your incessant rants calling for Cook's head and wanting to get him ousted. You agree the sentiment is irrational, then at the same price you put 100% blame on Cook for the stock price,etc, as if he has 100% control over it, and shitting on him with the utmost venom You make no fucking sense.
There is no such thing as an "Apple" investor. Everyone is also simultaneously invested in lots of other assets, including houses, other stocks, bonds, mutual funds, retirement funds etc.
In other words, the premise of your post is that an investor somehow behaves differently with one part of their portfolio compared to the other parts of their portfolio. That is nonsensical. Please stop.
Anantksundarum, ... Taking everything you read literally does not always lead to a conducive outcome.
For example: “There is no such thing as an "Apple" investor” .... No? What else would you call anyone who owns one or more shares in Apple ... A Samsung investor?
You say: “Everyone is also simultaneously invested in lots of other assets” .... I say: Not necessarily, maybe I rent and don’t have any another investments, just 10,000 shares of Apple.
You say: “the premise of your post is that an investor somehow behaves differently with one part of their portfolio compared to the other parts of their portfolio. That is nonsensical. Please stop.” .... I say: It is very unlikely that people who buy a house use the same “research” to buy shares in apple.
Although I hardly ever agree with Constable Odo, in this post, at least, he makes a few salient points. I think a lot of “Apple investors” get their investing advice from analysts and other advisors and that most of those people are hugely biased by what they read or hear about Apple from the web or TV .... Not a “best case scenario”, I agree, but it is what it is. Therefore, it stands to reason that a lot of the “noise” about Apple does affect Apple stock price because, as we know, even if we tell a lie, if it gets repeated often enough, it “becomes” the truth.
Anantksundarum, reading between the lines can sometimes be very helpful at seeing the true message, right?
2) Answering to someone, anyone, on ZDNet. Definitely go ahead and shoot from the hip.
Or the New York Times, or The Guardian.
Was that comment necessary?
I say: Not necessarily, maybe I rent and don’t have any another investments, just 10,000 shares of Apple.
As an empirical matter, I seriously doubt that any such -- or more than a few such -- investors exist. (As an aside, if they do, they deserve all the investing pain they get for willfully being so under-diversified -- that is just par for the course.)
Even if many such people exist, I doubt that those are the marginal -- as opposed to the average -- investors that regularly trade AAPL and thus move prices. Most of the trading volume is due to institutions (incl. HFs and HFTs) who are invested in far more than just AAPL.
But you're certainly welcome to believe otherwise.
Was that comment necessary?
Perhaps I should have clarified: on Apple-related posts, if they sounded like TheDBA.....
It's still early yet. If a kid has a phone now then how is one going to explain why their current phone is no longer active unless the iPhone is bought at full retail and even then some carriers make it mandatory to activate right there and then.
That's because you fanbois don't understand innovation.
Jeff just innovates stuff out of his head. To hell with profits or actual sales numbers. We buy books at $10 a piece and sell them back to you at $9 a piece. That's pure innovation right there. And just you wait and see. Pretty soon, like in 5 to 8 years into the future, Amazon drone multicopters will be flying the city streets and dropping packages on your heads. I just splurged my future vapor like plans onto everybody and you're all supposed to kneel before me, especially Wall Street. That's innovation my friend.
When was the last time Apple innovated anything? Was it 1984? Because everyone knows that touch screens, smartphones and tablets existed way before Apple decided to get into the game.
You win the internet today!
That's because you fanbois don't understand innovation.
Jeff just innovates stuff out of his head. To hell with profits or actual sales numbers. We buy books at $10 a piece and sell them back to you at $9 a piece. That's pure innovation right there. And just you wait and see. Pretty soon, like in 5 to 8 years into the future, Amazon drone multicopters will be flying the city streets and dropping packages on your heads. I just splurged my future vapor like plans onto everybody and you're all supposed to kneel before me, especially Wall Street. That's innovation my friend.
When was the last time Apple innovated anything? Was it 1984? Because everyone knows that touch screens, smartphones and tablets existed way before Apple decided to get into the game.
Exactly. Not much innovation from Apple after SJ. It's so obvious with the ipad mini. First generation no retina display because Apple wanted to keep it as a feature for the 2nd generation. Then the 2nd generation has sub-standard color problem because it'll be "improved" with the 3rd generation and then consumer may get the touch id with the 4th generation...
$99 (5c) and free (4s) aren't identical. Then there's the issue that the 4s is a great looking phone while the 5c appeals to a different aesthetic (something I applaud BTW, nice to widen a line's appeal).
The article is referencing black friday- in which case, both the 5c and 4s were free- also known as, identical pricing.
First point: ... You need to realize Wall Street can be stupid and inefficent in the short term. They are blinded by their own greed and fear.
Second point: ... So why does Amazon/Google get the benefit of the doubt? Check out their institutional ownership and insider ownership percentages.
Google 87%
Amazon 87%
Apple 62%
Final point: Bottom line is the public was much smarter about Apple than Wall Street.
The only thing I disagree with you on your first point is the "short term" .... Wall Street can be stupid in the long term as well. However, remember "Wall Street" is made up of small investors as well as institutional investors and, for the most part, the institutional investor is more well versed in playing the "stock market game", and to forget that it is, indeed, a game is to do so at your own peril, .... and I'd be more than willing to bet that the people who are making the institutional trade made off better than the millions of small shareholders who tend to buy or sell "for all the wrong reasons".
Second point: Those figures tell me that Google and Amazon are both better than Apple than selling H & N (hype & noise). Google hypes "moonshots", i.e. driverless cars and such, to make up for the crap that they give away ... while Bozo, oops, Bezos goes on TV to hype driverless delivery "vehicles" to keep his "ponzi scheme" of a company "alive and well". .... and as we all know, Apple "only" sells the "best in class" hardware and software in the computing industry. I ask you, where's the "magic" in that ? /s
Final point: Sorry, I have to strongly disagree here as I firmly believe that the "public" is at a huge disadvantage at playing the stock market game for the simple reason that they don't know all of the rules and whenever it looks like they are starting to "figure it out" the powers to be change them and keep that knowledge to themselves .... until they need another bailout, at least. ... Not sarcasm!
The article is referencing black friday- in which case, both the 5c and 4s were free- also known as, identical pricing.
The article is where I got those prices, the direct quotes:
"with the iPhone 5c selling for $99 with a new two-year service contract"
and
"Rounding out the top Apple devices tracked by the firm was the iPhone 4S, which saw its weekend traffic grow 10 percent after black Friday. The iPhone 4S is available for free with a two-year cellular contract."
As an empirical matter, I seriously doubt that any such -- or more than a few such -- investors exist. (As an aside, if they do, they deserve all the investing pain they get for willfully being so under-diversified -- that is just par for the course.)
Even if many such people exist, I doubt that those are the marginal -- as opposed to the average -- investors that regularly trade AAPL and thus move prices. Most of the trading volume is due to institutions (incl. HFs and HFTs) who are invested in far more than just AAPL.
But you're certainly welcome to believe otherwise.
Well, that's one of my three examples of your taking things too literally (in a post "taking a shot" at Counstable Odo) explained, or not .... care to have a go at the other two?
Exactly. Not much innovation from Apple after SJ. It's so obvious with the ipad mini. First generation no retina display because Apple wanted to keep it as a feature for the 2nd generation. Then the 2nd generation has sub-standard color problem because it'll be "improved" with the 3rd generation and then consumer may get the touch id with the 4th generation...
The display of the 2nd gen iPad Mini is not sub-standard. Tests show it is worse than the Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) used in Kindle Fire HDX and Nexus 7. LTPS is maybe the best technology commercially available, but the production is seriously limited. No one can provide the necessary quantities for Apple, and so they went with IGZO (which is again constrained, but not as bad as LTPS).
Can you make the distinction between "not being the best" and "sub-standard"? When did LTPS become THE STANDARD?
Exactly. Not much innovation from Apple after SJ. It's so obvious with the ipad mini. First generation no retina display because Apple wanted to keep it as a feature for the 2nd generation. Then the 2nd generation has sub-standard color problem because it'll be "improved" with the 3rd generation and then consumer may get the touch id with the 4th generation...
I thought that my post was so outrageous that including sarcasm tags would be like stating the very obvious.
However, you my friend, I have trouble reading. Even if 1% of your post is serious, then may I nominate you for the "born yesterday internet award".
Who knew it could be so successful%u2026?
/s