Fine, the article says it was published at 11:25 EST.
Guess what? That's another AI screw-up. They might say EST, but it was actually published at 11:25 AM EDT. That's what this country is currently running on. It got posted to the forums at 11:27 AM, and we're on Daylight time. My reaction was to the forum post, which occurred at 11:27 EDT. I didn't even look at the front page article.
Yes, that was MY point exactly when I responded to your post about AI posting something before it happened (re: "battled back Tuesday afternoon")
Speaking of "battle", it really is lost when you have to explain...
I find it very funny that a joke about AI posting about something happening in the future turned into a scratch and hair pull fight about which is correct, EDT or EST....
I find it very funny that a joke about AI posting about something happening in the future turned into a scratch and hair pull fight about which is correct, EDT or EST....
I had no question about which is correct. AI seems to not know what it is.
Analysts predict NAND spending is going to increase by a fantastic amount.
Apple anounces it expects to spend 1.4B on NAND.
Analysts note that Apple is "slashing" NAND orders.
However, the amount that Apple reported is actually up 12% from the previous year.
The real kicker, though, is when you combine this with the sudden drop in NAND prices. A 12% increase is actually a much greater increase.
No. A 12% increase in total NAND purchased should not be read to mean Apple has bought a significantly larger order.
When you're buying over $1 Billion memory, at wholesale pricing, the cost break distributed to retail is not a straightline relationship. In fact, the cost of retail pricing for NAND has more to do with the manufacturing capacity output that makes available NAND after it accounts for volume wholesale contracts.
I have never heard a viable piece of info from this group with regards to apple. Munster may be too optimistic and Sagonocchi (sp?) clearly plays the contrarian to see his name in print.(His mom must be proud) Charlie Wolf-- listen to Charlie Wolf -- I think he is still at Needham.
Agree wholeheartedly. And, both IBM and GE have been terrible stocks to own during the past decade. Neither would come close to being described as "growth" stocks. And, Exxon-Mobil - a classic 'value' stock - is doing well because of the freaked-out, once-in-a-lifetime movement in commodity prices in the past few years.
I would most certainly not want to put AAPL into this group.
And, you make a number of other very valid points as well, esp. on R&D spending. Lots of stuff that gets classified into that bucket can often have very little to do with actual research or product development
Yes, that was MY point exactly when I responded to your post about AI posting something before it happened (re: "battled back Tuesday afternoon")
Speaking of "battle", it really is lost when you have to explain...
Well, since I had simply read the article through the forum post, I fail to see how you expected me to be a mind reader. If your initial post had been clearer, we could have avoided the confusion.
If you bought IBM in early 1999, you'd still be down. How is that "growth"?
You can pick any date you like. All companies have stock that doesn't move much during some period. Go back to early 1998. If you then look at that price vs todays price, you would say it's a growth stock.
But, IBM has also been very steady, it hasn't dropped like many stocks did either in the latter years, and is doing well this year.
Agree wholeheartedly. And, both IBM and GE have been terrible stocks to own during the past decade. Neither would come close to being described as "growth" stocks. And, Exxon-Mobil - a classic 'value' stock - is doing well because of the freaked-out, once-in-a-lifetime movement in commodity prices in the past few years.
I would most certainly not want to put AAPL into this group.
And, you make a number of other very valid points as well, esp. on R&D spending. Lots of stuff that gets classified into that bucket can often have very little to do with actual research or product development
Except for a peak in the early 2000's, IBM stock has done well, exp compared to some of iyts pears.
And, boy, the stocks you consider to be bad are anything but.
Comments
One could do those things, but it's not the point I was making.
Apple hasn't increased their R&D budget as a percentage of sales in any significant way in years. They even cut it a short while ago.
I wouldn't mind if they took down some of the cash for R&D.
FY04 = 491 million
FY05 = 535 million
FY06 = 712 million
FY07 = 782 million
1st Q FY08 = 246 million
GE, IBM, Exxon-Mobile, to name a few.
Perfect examples of value stocks. See: http://www.investorwords.com/2262/growth_stock.html
Right. 11:27 EST, not 11:27 EDT.
Look at the time the original article was published.
"Apple says Time Machine over AirPort Disk is unsupported feature
By AppleInsider Staff
Published: 04:00 PM EST"
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...downgrade.html
Fine, the article says it was published at 11:25 EST.
Guess what? That's another AI screw-up. They might say EST, but it was actually published at 11:25 AM EDT. That's what this country is currently running on. It got posted to the forums at 11:27 AM, and we're on Daylight time. My reaction was to the forum post, which occurred at 11:27 EDT. I didn't even look at the front page article.
Fine, the article says it was published at 11:25 EST.
Guess what? That's another AI screw-up.
Yes, that was MY point exactly when I responded to your post about AI posting something before it happened (re: "battled back Tuesday afternoon")
Speaking of "battle", it really is lost when you have to explain...
Yes, that was MY point exactly when I responded to your post about AI posting something before it happened (re: "battled back Tuesday afternoon")
Speaking of "battle", it really is lost when you have to explain...
I find it very funny that a joke about AI posting about something happening in the future turned into a scratch and hair pull fight about which is correct, EDT or EST....
I find it very funny that a joke about AI posting about something happening in the future turned into a scratch and hair pull fight about which is correct, EDT or EST....
I had no question about which is correct. AI seems to not know what it is.
John Gruber commented on this earlier today.
Analysts predict NAND spending is going to increase by a fantastic amount.
Apple anounces it expects to spend 1.4B on NAND.
Analysts note that Apple is "slashing" NAND orders.
However, the amount that Apple reported is actually up 12% from the previous year.
The real kicker, though, is when you combine this with the sudden drop in NAND prices. A 12% increase is actually a much greater increase.
No. A 12% increase in total NAND purchased should not be read to mean Apple has bought a significantly larger order.
When you're buying over $1 Billion memory, at wholesale pricing, the cost break distributed to retail is not a straightline relationship. In fact, the cost of retail pricing for NAND has more to do with the manufacturing capacity output that makes available NAND after it accounts for volume wholesale contracts.
GE, IBM, Exxon-Mobile, to name a few.
If you bought IBM in early 1999, you'd still be down. How is that "growth"?
Perfect examples of value stocks. See: http://www.investorwords.com/2262/growth_stock.html
Agree wholeheartedly. And, both IBM and GE have been terrible stocks to own during the past decade. Neither would come close to being described as "growth" stocks. And, Exxon-Mobil - a classic 'value' stock - is doing well because of the freaked-out, once-in-a-lifetime movement in commodity prices in the past few years.
I would most certainly not want to put AAPL into this group.
And, you make a number of other very valid points as well, esp. on R&D spending. Lots of stuff that gets classified into that bucket can often have very little to do with actual research or product development
If you bought IBM in early 1999, you'd still be down. How is that "growth"?
Yup. And, if you bought GE in late '90s, it would have cost of $50+ (indeed, almost $60 by early 2000); today, it sells for $36+.
I'm happily keeping my 5700 shares.
Whoa. Bet the whole enchilada on Apple, eh?
Economists are far better at explaining what happened in the past than they are at predicting what will happen in the future.
That's right, kids! As one of my favorite quotes goes, "nobody knows anything" (so sez William Goldman in "Adventures in the Screen Trade").
Yes, that was MY point exactly when I responded to your post about AI posting something before it happened (re: "battled back Tuesday afternoon")
Speaking of "battle", it really is lost when you have to explain...
Well, since I had simply read the article through the forum post, I fail to see how you expected me to be a mind reader. If your initial post had been clearer, we could have avoided the confusion.
Cut absolutely or cut as a percentage of sales?
Sales are growing very fast. Trying to grow R&D
that fast would probably result in loss of control,
too many projects, waste, fragmentation, and fat ankles.
Sales.
FY04 = 491 million
FY05 = 535 million
FY06 = 712 million
FY07 = 782 million
1st Q FY08 = 246 million
If you look at the growth in the size of the companies sales during the same periods, you would see what I'm saying more clearly.
The 06-07 years are the example I'm referring to. As far as 2008 goes, we won't be able to see until next January.
Perfect examples of value stocks. See: http://www.investorwords.com/2262/growth_stock.html
"...usually pay little or no dividends..."
What that means is that some companies with growth stocks pay average or better dividends, but most pay either small dividends or none.
A fair percentage do pay dividends.
If you bought IBM in early 1999, you'd still be down. How is that "growth"?
You can pick any date you like. All companies have stock that doesn't move much during some period. Go back to early 1998. If you then look at that price vs todays price, you would say it's a growth stock.
But, IBM has also been very steady, it hasn't dropped like many stocks did either in the latter years, and is doing well this year.
Agree wholeheartedly. And, both IBM and GE have been terrible stocks to own during the past decade. Neither would come close to being described as "growth" stocks. And, Exxon-Mobil - a classic 'value' stock - is doing well because of the freaked-out, once-in-a-lifetime movement in commodity prices in the past few years.
I would most certainly not want to put AAPL into this group.
And, you make a number of other very valid points as well, esp. on R&D spending. Lots of stuff that gets classified into that bucket can often have very little to do with actual research or product development
Except for a peak in the early 2000's, IBM stock has done well, exp compared to some of iyts pears.
And, boy, the stocks you consider to be bad are anything but.