Well, now that Apple is not going to be a nitch player anymore, its time to start thinking BIG !!!
Lots BIG plans, BIG money, BIG executions RIGHT NOW, if anything fails cut it OFF IMMEDIATELY.
iii MEDIA GIANT HERE WE COME !!!
I hope Pixar's "MIND CONTROL MOVIE" does not give too many people upset stomachs.
You know Apple SWITCHED WWDC to the 6th of June so that the BEAST could be born on 6/6. That's what the code name of the OS for these new MACchines will be "BEAST" !!!
Algol, think outside the box with this. If the PPC platform is really doing so well, then why is Apple still stuck using single processor desktop-only chips that are now almost one year and 300 MHz behind what Apple told us a couple of years ago?
More to the point, the issue really isn't so much of what IBM is supplying today but what they've told Apple they'll have for them three to five years from now. If Apple didn't like the prognosis, maybe they decided to bite the bullet and hitch their wagon to an outfit who's prime business is designing and building PC processors. It's easy for us to say that moving to some kind of Intel architecture is "risky" but then again getting processors from the same company as your competition can also be considered "low risk" in the long term. Apple made the CISC-->RISC transition almost seamless. Could they make another processor transition seamless? I dunno but if anyone can it's Apple.
The G5 is actually doing quite fine in respect to the PC world. Everyone has had trouble with the 90µ process not resulting in the speed increases they expected. This is no more IBM's fault as it is the fault of scientists and engineers throughout the business. Blame physics my friend not IBM. The G5s are still really fast and according to benchmarks they hold their own against top of the line wintels.
In regard the apple's portable line I can understand being upset. The G4 is obviously dated. However, for apple to switch over to x86, which is the fucking mother of all challenges, because of this is crazy. A switch like that would probably drive apple out of business in my opinion.
In my opinion the most likely way for this to turn out is intel making PPC chips for apple. Perhaps some variant of the P4M.
Apple is going to shift to Intel. Why am I so sure? Because no one is denying it. The sources are clearly on the Intel side. c|net and the Wall Street Journal are well sourced at Intel. When was the last time they broke Apple news?
Get your stop loss orders ready. Apple's stock is going to tank Monday morning. People here have hit it dead on: Mac hardware sales will dwindle to non-existent until the new systems are released. That alone is reason to deny these rumors. If the story isn't true, then someone would have at least tried to steer the WSJ off the story. It's one thing to leave c|net twisting in the wind. Burning the WSJ for 36 hours of free hype on a summer weekend is another matter entirely.
One question that remains is whether Intel will be building a new PPC architecture or whether OS X will be running on one of Intel's current processor lines. Either way, Steve Jobs must make this announcement now. Mere rumors of ongoing collaboration with Intel would have a stifling effect on hardware sales and development. At least by making the announcement now he gives users and developers a road map.
Another question is what Apple will do to persuade the existing user base that this will be good for them. The cutting edge in home computing hardware is a moving target. But changing architectures the last time (68k to PPC) was a serious pain in the ass. What olive branch will Apple extend to its current users? The only people out there selling OS X recently have been those in the installed base. Apple's marketing budget has been tied up in the iPod. It is easy to argue that the installed base has been Apple's best marketing tool for its OS and hardware during the past three years.
Steve Jobs wants to go head-to-head with Longhorn. The reported schedule for the switch makes Apple's intent clear. As Longhorn hits the street, so will the Intel-powered Macs. Most consumers will need new hardware to run Longhorn anyway. Why not sell them on a different operating system while you're at it? Tiger is a stable (for most of us), mature, secure operating system.
Apple will trade on the success of the iPod, the security of its operating system and the ill-will Microsoft has built with its customers. Switching to an Intel architecture will allow simple, no if-ands-or-buts comparisons between the two operating systems.
And then there's the comfort factor. Some PC users are actually comfortable with their Intel hardware. You're already asking them to switch operating systems. Persuading them to switch platforms at the same time requires another leap of faith.
The switch might make Apple more price competitive as well. If the operating system begins selling in higher volume, Apple will no longer need to charge a premium for its hardware. (Which is not to say Apple won't still charge a premium). But margins are much higher on software than hardware. Increased volume in software sales could allow Apple to give up at least a portion of its high hardware margins.
This could be Apple's last best chance to make significant gains in marketshare. Steve Jobs is betting the company that Mac OS X can go head-to-head with Windows. Others have been down that road. We know how that ended.
This could be Apple's last best chance to make significant gains in marketshare. Steve Jobs is betting the company that Mac OS X can go head-to-head with Windows. Others have been down that road. We know how that ended.
I give Apple a 60-40 chance.
If Steve is going with the x86, then he is indeed betting the company, and for reasons outlined in detail already in these forums I would put the odds of Apple's success considerably lower.
If, however, we are looking at a Power-based chip or some RISC-based variant, then the chances of continued success are considerable.
I'm left to wonder what hoops Intel would need to jump through to become a PowerPC licensee.
Finally, for those of you who are so sanguine about Apple's increased cpu options by going with Intel, I simply ask ... why? Given the fact that Apple (with its small marketshare) has evidently been unable to compel IBM to meet its needs, on what basis are we to believe that working with Intel will be any different? (Yes, I know that there is the possibility of some iPod-like device and yes I know that Intel may covet the cachet of working with Apple instead of simply big old Microsoft, but c'mon, in business terms what is the CLEAR payoff for Intel?)
The principal advantage that Intel offers Apple in the near future is in the portable realm. Does Jobs really believe or know that IBM and Freescale cannot supply a competitive, sufficiently cool 64-bit chip for Apple's portables? If that's the case, then circumstance may have forced his hand.
If Steve is going with the x86, then he is indeed betting the company, and for reasons outlined in detail already in these forums I would put the odds of Apple's success considerably lower.
If, however, we are looking at a Power-based chip or some RISC-based variant, then the chances of continued success are considerable.
I'm left to wonder what hoops Intel would need to jump through to become a PowerPC licensee.
Finally, for those of you who are so sanguine about Apple's increased cpu options by going with Intel, I simply ask ... why? Given the fact that Apple (with its small marketshare) has evidently been unable to compel IBM to meet its needs, on what basis are we to believe that working with Intel will be any different? (Yes, I know that there is the possibility of some iPod-like device and yes I know that Intel may covet the cachet of working with Apple instead of simply big old Microsoft, but c'mon, in business terms what is the CLEAR payoff for them?)
That's the problem with this whole story. When analyzed in detail it just doesn't make any sense. I think it is quite clear that apple switching to x86 would destroy them. IBM really isn't doing that bad. And as Sybaritic said what clear payoff is there for apple switching to Intel PPC chips? It's all a nice story but it makes no sense. Perhaps steve finally went mad as a result of him wearing those turtle necks so tight?
There has to be something else going on here. Either what Cnet meant was that intel would be making PPC chips for apple or perhaps the whole thing is a fraud.
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
I can sympathize. Not sleeping so soundly myself this weekend...
We're either going to be REALLY happy monday (and not so much on Tuesday) or the reverse. Either way, trading volume is going to be astronomical.
My hunch is that this will have a positive effect if true. Steve will take measures to calm people's fears, introducing new products that will hold sales in the meantime, etc. If the rumor is true, we know that Steve won't leave the stage with things as is - he'll be doing damage control the whole way, so it'll only get better.
Of course, the potential upside needs to be far more than the downside to calm my nerves and my Jan options limit my ability to ride through this. I suspect I'll be up with the market on Monday, which is painful here in CA.
That's the problem with this whole story. When analyzed in detail it just doesn't make any sense. I think it is quite clear that apple switching to x86 would destroy them. IBM really isn't doing that bad. And as Sybaritic said what clear payoff is there for apple switching to Intel PPC chips? It's all a nice story but it makes no sense. Perhaps steve finally went mad as a result of him wearing those turtle necks so tight?
There has to be something else going on here. Either what Cnet meant was that intel would be making PPC chips for apple or perhaps the whole thing is a fraud.
I totally disagree, if you don't understand read my previous posts.
Like I said MS has NEVER had any real competition.
I've been fortunate with my AAPL purchases - the bulk of my stock bought at $13 two splits ago, not to mention quite a few options plays when the earnings/announcement opportunities were right.
So far, I've yet to lose significantly and have done very well thanks in no small part to the community interest in this company. Apple is more predictable in their product announcements than almost any company and there are armies of people reporting on sales trends, rumored products, and so on. It's as close to an open book as you can expect, but it takes time that I can't afford to devote to following other companies.
Everything outside of AAPL is in index funds. If I can't follow the companies, I'm better off playing the field.
If Apple wasn't doing such a good job of making money for me, and indicating that the trend will continue for the foreseeable future, I would have taken more profits by now. Even so, I'm thinking that odds are on me being happy Monday night rather than pissed.
I might be totally wrong on this, but I seem to remember something about Apple owning the design of the G4, G5, etc. and just having IBM produce the chips for them, like Motorola used to produce the chips for them (or something along these lines, I'm probably horribly oversimplifying this). If so, what's the big deal with Apple switching production facilities from IBM to Intel? Wouldn't it be just like switching from Motorola to IBM?
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
Random Wordplay:
Apple is going HEADLONG against LONGHORN...
Stock advice:
What I finally figured out that I could do when I was trading that much with a margin account, major leverage, was to sell half of it with a stop loss.
Over the years I learned to trade my margin account often investing ALL of it in one stock without having major losses, although over time if the market continually dropped so did I.
My experience is that if I put a stop loss on something the market almost always finds it, I am sure the market makers cheat, anyway by setting half to sell or more, enough that you will be comfortable with the potential loss you can protest yourself and still be in the game.
By setting half to sell if it goes down and then rockets up, which is what often happens with risky changes like this, then when it goes down it sells right away and you keep most of the profits on that half.
Then if it keeps dropping the losses are not as great and you have time to think and act, or if it turns around and rockets then you are still making money and can get back in with the other half if it looks like it has legs.
Although at that point it is more logic to conclude that you were over-invested and should try to find some other place to put the money.
The main technique that I used to keep from having large losses with big margin was that I would buy with a very good reason, if the reason ever went away then I would sell, often it went away fast, and in those cases it did not bother me to loss a lot and 5% that was just part of the game -- hanging on for no good reason and loosing 10 to 25% is just not acceptable.
Don't be too hard on yourself though its a human game and if you are being unemotional all the time, you are playing it too safe.
My brother is the kind of investor who claims to know everything about stock, all the calculations everything, and he would NEVER buy the over priced stocks I buy. He buys only safety like CSCO, and thats it, which was over priced of course but since it went up so consistently he could pretend it fit his criteria.
But then if you asked him how much he made he won't tell you, how much he invested, around 2 or 3K.
At first I bought hot stocks and hung on to them no matter what, bad idea.
Then I tried to find hot stocks with no negatives, a true sure thing ( There are sure things. ), then if one negative showed up would sell fast. And I found out this was possible in those years that tech was HOT.
I have made more than 100% year to year in my entire portfolio three or four times. Last year I made just over that.
My best year I made a gain of 300+%, well over 100K.
Sounds amazing and it was...
Although this is how it really looked year to year:
1/1 2000 45K x 4+ = years gain.
1999 15K x about 3 = years gain.
1998 120K / 8 = years loss. Hung on to USRX after bad news.
1997 65 to 120K
1996 45 to 65K My first big hit, Citrix Systems, I bought and held no matter what and loss half my money early in the year but then it rocketed and when I had a good profit I sold. If I had held on I would faced the volatility of MS claiming to lock them out of Windows and then licensing them and the stock going up about another 250%
The real big gainer started around 1994, I started watching PowerBuilder on a hunch and kept watching it for almost three years while it went up 10 to 12 points a week every week with end until it was finally delisted -- I NEVER BOUGHT ANY.
It was bought by Sybase and eventually delisted, delisting means it does not show up on stock history charts so when brokers tell you how much things have gone up in the past they show a history chart that only shows existing stocks. They usually show Home Depot with 1000% in 10 years or Walmart simular.
PowerBuilder would have easily have beaten them all.
. . . Steve Jobs wants to go head-to-head with Longhorn. The reported schedule for the switch makes Apple's intent clear. As Longhorn hits the street, so will the Intel-powered Macs. Most consumers will need new hardware to run Longhorn anyway. Why not sell them on a different operating system while you're at it? . . .
Putting an Intel X86 processor in the Mac is not going to change the competitive picture for Apple at all. Buying an X86 Mac still means all new software for a Windows user, as well as new Mac hardware. Apple and Microsoft will not be any more or any less head-to-head if the Mac changes to Intel X86. Why not stay with the PPC?
Quote:
. . . This could be Apple's last best chance to make significant gains in marketshare. . .
Since a X86 will not change the competitive picture, it will not significantly improve the Mac's market share. Au contraire -- going with the X86 will hurt the Mac market share for two years, until the transitions is complete. It will be fortunate if it can recover to today's share.
I'm amazed at the credence so many people seem willing to lend to this CNET story. I'm especially amazed when the not-literally-stated-in-the-article conclusion is being drawn that the story means that Macs will be built with x86 processors, and people are still willing to believe it.
There's probably some core of truth here -- the idea of Apple doing some sort of business with Intel is hardly shocking. Beyond that, I think all we're seeing here is the rumor mill echo chamber effect amplified by CNET's desire to "get the scoop" on what they're hoping will be a big story.
As for the WSJ now reporting what CNET said... that's just more echo chamber. It wouldn't be the first time the WSJ simply repeated what the MAC rumor mill was saying without doing any of their own fact-checking.
Putting an Intel X86 processor in the Mac is not going to change the competitive picture for Apple at all. Buying an X86 Mac still means all new software for a Windows user, as well as new Mac hardware. Apple and Microsoft will not be any more or any less head-to-head if the Mac changes to Intel X86. Why not stay with the PPC?
Since a X86 will not change the competitive picture, it will not significantly improve the Mac's market share. Au contraire -- going with the X86 will hurt the Mac market share for two years, until the transitions is complete. It will be fortunate if it can recover to today's share.
I can't see how you can say this.
Intel processors execute the code of Windows software and that code also makes calls to Windows OS, it should be relatively easy for Mac OS X to accommodate those OS calls as well.
Most professional apps do not make tones of OS calls most of it is just C or C++ you seem to be suggesting that these OSs are runtime environments like Basic of old or worse Small-talk no that's not it. The code is compiled and turned into assembly language code, which the processors executes directly, only OS calls require help from the OS. Windows and menus all that is just simple calls there is usually much more high level language code in any given professional application.
The main event loop is a link to the OS that is like a runtime but the amount of code in the app required to make all the OS calls is rather tiny.
I'm amazed at the credence so many people seem willing to lend to this CNET story. I'm especially amazed when the not-literally-stated-in-the-article conclusion is being drawn that the story means that Macs will be built with x86 processors, and people are still willing to believe it.
There's probably some core of truth here -- the idea of Apple doing some sort of business with Intel is hardly shocking. Beyond that, I think all we're seeing here is the rumor mill echo chamber effect amplified by CNET's desire to "get the scoop" on what they're hoping will be a big story.
As for the WSJ now reporting what CNET said... that's just more echo chamber. It wouldn't be the first time the WSJ simply repeated what the MAC rumor mill was saying without doing any of their own fact-checking.
"Report: Apple to ditch IBM, move to Intel-based Macs ...
Apple next week will announce a phased transition to Intel chips, according to CNET News.com. Apple will announce that it is ending its partnership with IBM and will begin using Intel processors in Macs as early as next year, the report said. The announcement, expected at Apple's annual WWDC developer conference where CEO Steve Jobs will deliver a keynote address, would follow weeks of speculation after The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was considering building Macs around Intel processors. UPDATE: A new Wall Street Journal article confirms the transition plan outlined in CNET's report. "An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule.""
Comments
Lots BIG plans, BIG money, BIG executions RIGHT NOW, if anything fails cut it OFF IMMEDIATELY.
iii MEDIA GIANT HERE WE COME !!!
I hope Pixar's "MIND CONTROL MOVIE" does not give too many people upset stomachs.
You know Apple SWITCHED WWDC to the 6th of June so that the BEAST could be born on 6/6. That's what the code name of the OS for these new MACchines will be "BEAST" !!!
AND I SHALL BE THE BEAST MASTER !!!!!!
Originally posted by Hudson1
Algol, think outside the box with this. If the PPC platform is really doing so well, then why is Apple still stuck using single processor desktop-only chips that are now almost one year and 300 MHz behind what Apple told us a couple of years ago?
More to the point, the issue really isn't so much of what IBM is supplying today but what they've told Apple they'll have for them three to five years from now. If Apple didn't like the prognosis, maybe they decided to bite the bullet and hitch their wagon to an outfit who's prime business is designing and building PC processors. It's easy for us to say that moving to some kind of Intel architecture is "risky" but then again getting processors from the same company as your competition can also be considered "low risk" in the long term. Apple made the CISC-->RISC transition almost seamless. Could they make another processor transition seamless? I dunno but if anyone can it's Apple.
The G5 is actually doing quite fine in respect to the PC world. Everyone has had trouble with the 90µ process not resulting in the speed increases they expected. This is no more IBM's fault as it is the fault of scientists and engineers throughout the business. Blame physics my friend not IBM. The G5s are still really fast and according to benchmarks they hold their own against top of the line wintels.
In regard the apple's portable line I can understand being upset. The G4 is obviously dated. However, for apple to switch over to x86, which is the fucking mother of all challenges, because of this is crazy. A switch like that would probably drive apple out of business in my opinion.
In my opinion the most likely way for this to turn out is intel making PPC chips for apple. Perhaps some variant of the P4M.
Get your stop loss orders ready. Apple's stock is going to tank Monday morning. People here have hit it dead on: Mac hardware sales will dwindle to non-existent until the new systems are released. That alone is reason to deny these rumors. If the story isn't true, then someone would have at least tried to steer the WSJ off the story. It's one thing to leave c|net twisting in the wind. Burning the WSJ for 36 hours of free hype on a summer weekend is another matter entirely.
One question that remains is whether Intel will be building a new PPC architecture or whether OS X will be running on one of Intel's current processor lines. Either way, Steve Jobs must make this announcement now. Mere rumors of ongoing collaboration with Intel would have a stifling effect on hardware sales and development. At least by making the announcement now he gives users and developers a road map.
Another question is what Apple will do to persuade the existing user base that this will be good for them. The cutting edge in home computing hardware is a moving target. But changing architectures the last time (68k to PPC) was a serious pain in the ass. What olive branch will Apple extend to its current users? The only people out there selling OS X recently have been those in the installed base. Apple's marketing budget has been tied up in the iPod. It is easy to argue that the installed base has been Apple's best marketing tool for its OS and hardware during the past three years.
Steve Jobs wants to go head-to-head with Longhorn. The reported schedule for the switch makes Apple's intent clear. As Longhorn hits the street, so will the Intel-powered Macs. Most consumers will need new hardware to run Longhorn anyway. Why not sell them on a different operating system while you're at it? Tiger is a stable (for most of us), mature, secure operating system.
Apple will trade on the success of the iPod, the security of its operating system and the ill-will Microsoft has built with its customers. Switching to an Intel architecture will allow simple, no if-ands-or-buts comparisons between the two operating systems.
And then there's the comfort factor. Some PC users are actually comfortable with their Intel hardware. You're already asking them to switch operating systems. Persuading them to switch platforms at the same time requires another leap of faith.
The switch might make Apple more price competitive as well. If the operating system begins selling in higher volume, Apple will no longer need to charge a premium for its hardware. (Which is not to say Apple won't still charge a premium). But margins are much higher on software than hardware. Increased volume in software sales could allow Apple to give up at least a portion of its high hardware margins.
This could be Apple's last best chance to make significant gains in marketshare. Steve Jobs is betting the company that Mac OS X can go head-to-head with Windows. Others have been down that road. We know how that ended.
I give Apple a 60-40 chance.
Remember how it rocketed up into New Years day 2000 !!!
What millennium bug NO FEAR !!!!!!
I knew it would do that.
Originally posted by MACchine
Stocks usually do the opposite of what you would expect.
Remember how it rocketed up into New Years day 2000 !!!
What millennium bug NO FEAR !!!!!!
I knew it would do that.
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
originally posted by davemur:
This could be Apple's last best chance to make significant gains in marketshare. Steve Jobs is betting the company that Mac OS X can go head-to-head with Windows. Others have been down that road. We know how that ended.
I give Apple a 60-40 chance.
If Steve is going with the x86, then he is indeed betting the company, and for reasons outlined in detail already in these forums I would put the odds of Apple's success considerably lower.
If, however, we are looking at a Power-based chip or some RISC-based variant, then the chances of continued success are considerable.
I'm left to wonder what hoops Intel would need to jump through to become a PowerPC licensee.
Finally, for those of you who are so sanguine about Apple's increased cpu options by going with Intel, I simply ask ... why? Given the fact that Apple (with its small marketshare) has evidently been unable to compel IBM to meet its needs, on what basis are we to believe that working with Intel will be any different? (Yes, I know that there is the possibility of some iPod-like device and yes I know that Intel may covet the cachet of working with Apple instead of simply big old Microsoft, but c'mon, in business terms what is the CLEAR payoff for Intel?)
The principal advantage that Intel offers Apple in the near future is in the portable realm. Does Jobs really believe or know that IBM and Freescale cannot supply a competitive, sufficiently cool 64-bit chip for Apple's portables? If that's the case, then circumstance may have forced his hand.
Originally posted by Algol
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
I am NOT sure what Apple will do, it went up 5% the other day on the first WSJ article.
But I do know for certain that MS will go down !!!
When was the last time MS had any real competition, NEVER.
Originally posted by Sybaritic
If Steve is going with the x86, then he is indeed betting the company, and for reasons outlined in detail already in these forums I would put the odds of Apple's success considerably lower.
If, however, we are looking at a Power-based chip or some RISC-based variant, then the chances of continued success are considerable.
I'm left to wonder what hoops Intel would need to jump through to become a PowerPC licensee.
Finally, for those of you who are so sanguine about Apple's increased cpu options by going with Intel, I simply ask ... why? Given the fact that Apple (with its small marketshare) has evidently been unable to compel IBM to meet its needs, on what basis are we to believe that working with Intel will be any different? (Yes, I know that there is the possibility of some iPod-like device and yes I know that Intel may covet the cachet of working with Apple instead of simply big old Microsoft, but c'mon, in business terms what is the CLEAR payoff for them?)
That's the problem with this whole story. When analyzed in detail it just doesn't make any sense. I think it is quite clear that apple switching to x86 would destroy them. IBM really isn't doing that bad. And as Sybaritic said what clear payoff is there for apple switching to Intel PPC chips? It's all a nice story but it makes no sense. Perhaps steve finally went mad as a result of him wearing those turtle necks so tight?
There has to be something else going on here. Either what Cnet meant was that intel would be making PPC chips for apple or perhaps the whole thing is a fraud.
Originally posted by Algol
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
I can sympathize. Not sleeping so soundly myself this weekend...
We're either going to be REALLY happy monday (and not so much on Tuesday) or the reverse. Either way, trading volume is going to be astronomical.
My hunch is that this will have a positive effect if true. Steve will take measures to calm people's fears, introducing new products that will hold sales in the meantime, etc. If the rumor is true, we know that Steve won't leave the stage with things as is - he'll be doing damage control the whole way, so it'll only get better.
Of course, the potential upside needs to be far more than the downside to calm my nerves and my Jan options limit my ability to ride through this. I suspect I'll be up with the market on Monday, which is painful here in CA.
Originally posted by Algol
That's the problem with this whole story. When analyzed in detail it just doesn't make any sense. I think it is quite clear that apple switching to x86 would destroy them. IBM really isn't doing that bad. And as Sybaritic said what clear payoff is there for apple switching to Intel PPC chips? It's all a nice story but it makes no sense. Perhaps steve finally went mad as a result of him wearing those turtle necks so tight?
There has to be something else going on here. Either what Cnet meant was that intel would be making PPC chips for apple or perhaps the whole thing is a fraud.
I totally disagree, if you don't understand read my previous posts.
Like I said MS has NEVER had any real competition.
And then there's the poison pill.
Originally posted by Algol
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
Perhaps you should diversify more?
Originally posted by Xool
Perhaps you should diversify more?
Well, I'm in a similar boat.
I've been fortunate with my AAPL purchases - the bulk of my stock bought at $13 two splits ago, not to mention quite a few options plays when the earnings/announcement opportunities were right.
So far, I've yet to lose significantly and have done very well thanks in no small part to the community interest in this company. Apple is more predictable in their product announcements than almost any company and there are armies of people reporting on sales trends, rumored products, and so on. It's as close to an open book as you can expect, but it takes time that I can't afford to devote to following other companies.
Everything outside of AAPL is in index funds. If I can't follow the companies, I'm better off playing the field.
If Apple wasn't doing such a good job of making money for me, and indicating that the trend will continue for the foreseeable future, I would have taken more profits by now. Even so, I'm thinking that odds are on me being happy Monday night rather than pissed.
Originally posted by Algol
I have 8900 shares of apple worth 340,336 as of now so you guys can probably understand why I am fucking worried as shit about this rumor.
Random Wordplay:
Apple is going HEADLONG against LONGHORN...
Stock advice:
What I finally figured out that I could do when I was trading that much with a margin account, major leverage, was to sell half of it with a stop loss.
Over the years I learned to trade my margin account often investing ALL of it in one stock without having major losses, although over time if the market continually dropped so did I.
My experience is that if I put a stop loss on something the market almost always finds it, I am sure the market makers cheat, anyway by setting half to sell or more, enough that you will be comfortable with the potential loss you can protest yourself and still be in the game.
By setting half to sell if it goes down and then rockets up, which is what often happens with risky changes like this, then when it goes down it sells right away and you keep most of the profits on that half.
Then if it keeps dropping the losses are not as great and you have time to think and act, or if it turns around and rockets then you are still making money and can get back in with the other half if it looks like it has legs.
Although at that point it is more logic to conclude that you were over-invested and should try to find some other place to put the money.
The main technique that I used to keep from having large losses with big margin was that I would buy with a very good reason, if the reason ever went away then I would sell, often it went away fast, and in those cases it did not bother me to loss a lot and 5% that was just part of the game -- hanging on for no good reason and loosing 10 to 25% is just not acceptable.
Don't be too hard on yourself though its a human game and if you are being unemotional all the time, you are playing it too safe.
My brother is the kind of investor who claims to know everything about stock, all the calculations everything, and he would NEVER buy the over priced stocks I buy. He buys only safety like CSCO, and thats it, which was over priced of course but since it went up so consistently he could pretend it fit his criteria.
But then if you asked him how much he made he won't tell you, how much he invested, around 2 or 3K.
At first I bought hot stocks and hung on to them no matter what, bad idea.
Then I tried to find hot stocks with no negatives, a true sure thing ( There are sure things. ), then if one negative showed up would sell fast. And I found out this was possible in those years that tech was HOT.
I have made more than 100% year to year in my entire portfolio three or four times. Last year I made just over that.
My best year I made a gain of 300+%, well over 100K.
Sounds amazing and it was...
Although this is how it really looked year to year:
1/1 2000 45K x 4+ = years gain.
1999 15K x about 3 = years gain.
1998 120K / 8 = years loss. Hung on to USRX after bad news.
1997 65 to 120K
1996 45 to 65K My first big hit, Citrix Systems, I bought and held no matter what and loss half my money early in the year but then it rocketed and when I had a good profit I sold. If I had held on I would faced the volatility of MS claiming to lock them out of Windows and then licensing them and the stock going up about another 250%
The real big gainer started around 1994, I started watching PowerBuilder on a hunch and kept watching it for almost three years while it went up 10 to 12 points a week every week with end until it was finally delisted -- I NEVER BOUGHT ANY.
It was bought by Sybase and eventually delisted, delisting means it does not show up on stock history charts so when brokers tell you how much things have gone up in the past they show a history chart that only shows existing stocks. They usually show Home Depot with 1000% in 10 years or Walmart simular.
PowerBuilder would have easily have beaten them all.
Originally posted by davemur
. . . Steve Jobs wants to go head-to-head with Longhorn. The reported schedule for the switch makes Apple's intent clear. As Longhorn hits the street, so will the Intel-powered Macs. Most consumers will need new hardware to run Longhorn anyway. Why not sell them on a different operating system while you're at it? . . .
Putting an Intel X86 processor in the Mac is not going to change the competitive picture for Apple at all. Buying an X86 Mac still means all new software for a Windows user, as well as new Mac hardware. Apple and Microsoft will not be any more or any less head-to-head if the Mac changes to Intel X86. Why not stay with the PPC?
. . . This could be Apple's last best chance to make significant gains in marketshare. . .
Since a X86 will not change the competitive picture, it will not significantly improve the Mac's market share. Au contraire -- going with the X86 will hurt the Mac market share for two years, until the transitions is complete. It will be fortunate if it can recover to today's share.
There's probably some core of truth here -- the idea of Apple doing some sort of business with Intel is hardly shocking. Beyond that, I think all we're seeing here is the rumor mill echo chamber effect amplified by CNET's desire to "get the scoop" on what they're hoping will be a big story.
As for the WSJ now reporting what CNET said... that's just more echo chamber. It wouldn't be the first time the WSJ simply repeated what the MAC rumor mill was saying without doing any of their own fact-checking.
Originally posted by snoopy
Putting an Intel X86 processor in the Mac is not going to change the competitive picture for Apple at all. Buying an X86 Mac still means all new software for a Windows user, as well as new Mac hardware. Apple and Microsoft will not be any more or any less head-to-head if the Mac changes to Intel X86. Why not stay with the PPC?
Since a X86 will not change the competitive picture, it will not significantly improve the Mac's market share. Au contraire -- going with the X86 will hurt the Mac market share for two years, until the transitions is complete. It will be fortunate if it can recover to today's share.
I can't see how you can say this.
Intel processors execute the code of Windows software and that code also makes calls to Windows OS, it should be relatively easy for Mac OS X to accommodate those OS calls as well.
Most professional apps do not make tones of OS calls most of it is just C or C++ you seem to be suggesting that these OSs are runtime environments like Basic of old or worse Small-talk no that's not it. The code is compiled and turned into assembly language code, which the processors executes directly, only OS calls require help from the OS. Windows and menus all that is just simple calls there is usually much more high level language code in any given professional application.
The main event loop is a link to the OS that is like a runtime but the amount of code in the app required to make all the OS calls is rather tiny.
Originally posted by shetline
I'm amazed at the credence so many people seem willing to lend to this CNET story. I'm especially amazed when the not-literally-stated-in-the-article conclusion is being drawn that the story means that Macs will be built with x86 processors, and people are still willing to believe it.
There's probably some core of truth here -- the idea of Apple doing some sort of business with Intel is hardly shocking. Beyond that, I think all we're seeing here is the rumor mill echo chamber effect amplified by CNET's desire to "get the scoop" on what they're hoping will be a big story.
As for the WSJ now reporting what CNET said... that's just more echo chamber. It wouldn't be the first time the WSJ simply repeated what the MAC rumor mill was saying without doing any of their own fact-checking.
http://www.macnn.com/
"Report: Apple to ditch IBM, move to Intel-based Macs ...
Apple next week will announce a phased transition to Intel chips, according to CNET News.com. Apple will announce that it is ending its partnership with IBM and will begin using Intel processors in Macs as early as next year, the report said. The announcement, expected at Apple's annual WWDC developer conference where CEO Steve Jobs will deliver a keynote address, would follow weeks of speculation after The Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was considering building Macs around Intel processors. UPDATE: A new Wall Street Journal article confirms the transition plan outlined in CNET's report. "An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule.""