Apple's Mac sales up 50 percent in April

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 80
    hypermarkhypermark Posts: 152member
    Thanks, PG4G. They certainly don't lack for ambition and the ability to execute. It is hard to believe that just a scant few years ago, the commoditization of everything in PC realm (i.e., The Dell Model) was accepted as gospel.



    The whole commoditized and open versus proprietary and integrated is somewhat simplistically the Google versus Apple chess game that lies in the distance -- although it's not like either company is completely binary in how they are playing this one.



    Still, one only has to look at iPhone SDK versus Google Android for guideposts.



    mark
  • Reply 22 of 80
    macfandavemacfandave Posts: 603member
    is the first thing that came to my mind when I heard of the Economic Stimulus Checks. I hope there are many other American patriots like me who will use it for its intended purpose: shopping.



    Yes, I realize that the machines are assembled overseas, so I won't be able to help as many American workers as I would like, but the profit goes to Cupertino.



    In bygone days, true patriots served their country with musket and bayonet, and later with M-16's. I'm proud to contribute to the well-being of our nation with my trusty Visa card!
  • Reply 23 of 80
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post


    is the first thing that came to my mind when I heard of the Economic Stimulus Checks. I hope there are many other American patriots like me who will use it for its intended purpose: shopping.



    lol I've wondered how many are going to be used to buy 3G iPhones.
  • Reply 24 of 80
    charkocharko Posts: 84member
    These April stats. confirm the March quarterly results that showed that Apple/AAPL is proving to be recession proof, and that's something that really impresses Wall St.

    I think AAPL is going to soar for the rest of this year. I believe it will end up much higher than $250. by January 2009.
  • Reply 25 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don't look for the companies that are worth the most, I look for the ones that are most likely to grow. AAPL, AMZN, MA, MON, GOOG, NTDOY, & RIMM are the best gainers that I have or have had.



    I also have plenty of slower, more stable stocks, like MCD (even though it doubled in the past 2 years), that I never look at. I jumped into Visa when it became public a fews months back. I expect that one to do 3-4x growth in the next 12 months.



    I often consider drug companies but that industry scares the crap out of me. If an FDA doesn't approve a product or some bad side effect s found the stock can plummet over night. But it can also be a faster gainer. I just don't have the patience or skill to research those companies. Tech companies are much easy to understand, IMO.



    Not only that, but technology (really including nearly any product that relies on integrated microelectronics) is the only sector where Moore's Law applies, ensuring a predictable curve of continuous improvement and price reduction through competition and innovation. Smart companies like Apple position themselves ahead of the marketplace and have wisely carved out an enviable position as a premium brand in the consumer products/computing niche, which has enabled them to avoid most of the fluctuations that have affected other commodities. Of course, if they time badly or misread the market, they can suffer the ill effects just like any other company, but right now they continue on an unprecedented path.
  • Reply 26 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were looking for large companies, I was saying that a company as large as AAPL, or RIMM, or GOOG or AMZN can have a really tough time doubing because of the law of large numbers. At some point they cease to be a growth stock because their size mirrors the size of their market, and stocks don't double unless the market sees their earnings continuing to grow at high rates for eyars to come. Apple is very close to that level now - at some point the old argument becomes - is Apple worth more than MSFT, when MSFT sells X amount more software than Apple does?



    So, while I think that that list of stocks is a fine one, I wouldn't count on getting the kind of returns you are hoping for. If it was as easy as looking at last year's returns and buying those stocks that did best, everyone would (and did) do that. I'm definitely not expecting another double out of Apple before 2010 or 2011, and that's if everything continues to go swimmingly. Now, if it drops back to 120, I'll be loading up on it again



    If for some reason they fell precipitously to 90 again, I'd buy triple what I bought last time...
  • Reply 27 of 80
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Smart companies like Apple position themselves ahead of the marketplace and have wisely carved out an enviable position as a premium brand in the consumer products/computing niche, which has enabled them to avoid most of the fluctuations that have affected other commodities.



    I'm no expert, but I do try to follow that old Gretzky mantra of skating to where the puck is going. I even used to invest in MS, but back then it was skate to where the puke is going.







    PS: I don't know about the rest of you but I seem to get asked about stocks every day by people that have all their money in saving accounts. The first thing I say is pick companies you love. If you love them then chances are others will too, but most importantly is that you're likely to want to put in the legwork of researching them. I'd like to know other's methods for picking stocks.
  • Reply 28 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post


    is the first thing that came to my mind when I heard of the Economic Stimulus Checks. I hope there are many other American patriots like me who will use it for its intended purpose: shopping.



    Yes, I realize that the machines are assembled overseas, so I won't be able to help as many American workers as I would like, but the profit goes to Cupertino.



    In bygone days, true patriots served their country with musket and bayonet, and later with M-16's. I'm proud to contribute to the well-being of our nation with my trusty Visa card!



    The first thing I thought when I heard about the "Economic Stimulus Checks"... what a fraud.
  • Reply 29 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I'm no expert, but I do try to follow that old Gretzky mantra of skating to where the puck is going. I even used to invest in MS, but back then it was skate to where the puke is going.







    PS: I don't know about the rest of you but I seem to get asked about stocks every day by people that have all their money in saving accounts. The first thing I say is pick companies you love. If you love them then chances are others will too, but most importantly is that you're likely to want to put in the legwork of researching them. I'd like to know other's methods for picking stocks.



    Know the industry well, and don't try to be expert in everything. I know little about drug companies, and even though I sometimes think that one or the other would be good to buy, I don't.



    I stick to computers and other electronic technology companies.



    Though I've spent a lot time investigating alternative energy industries, and may buy into something there.
  • Reply 30 of 80
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Know the industry well, and don't try to be expert in everything. I know little about drug companies, and even though I sometimes think that one or the other would be good to buy, I don't.



    I stick to computers and other electronic technology companies.



    I hear you!
  • Reply 31 of 80
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 877member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Know the industry well, and don't try to be expert in everything. I know little about drug companies, and even though I sometimes think that one or the other would be good to buy, I don't.



    I stick to computers and other electronic technology companies.



    Though I've spent a lot time investigating alternative energy industries, and may buy into something there.



    I'm still waiting for an alternative source that is available 24/7 without respect to the weather, and rivals traditional sources for cost. Thus far, the best bet is hydrogen, IF an efficient way to produce is discovered. But, as long as it takes more energy to produce it than you get when you burn it, it's going to be a loser. I'd be happy with some new traditional sources, like nuclear.
  • Reply 32 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    I'm still waiting for an alternative source that is available 24/7 without respect to the weather, and rivals traditional sources for cost. Thus far, the best bet is hydrogen, IF an efficient way to produce is discovered. But, as long as it takes more energy to produce it than you get when you burn it, it's going to be a loser. I'd be happy with some new traditional sources, like nuclear.



    The weather will be a factor in many of these. As far as cost goes, it's not likely that we will see oil and gas prices do anthing other than continue a rise, though it may be interrupted from time to time.



    This brings alternative energy pricing in line with conventional prices, even without governmental tax breaks.



    We are seeing ever larger wind plants coming in line, and will see that continue. New developments in solar cell technology are bringing the cost of that down quickly as well.



    Even semi-conventional energy sources such as shale oil extraction is looking good at these prices. While I don't like it, coal-oil extraction research is also accelerating, with better sulfur removal.



    I've always been a fan of nuclear power. My belief there, is that the danger from long term waste disposal is much less than from the continued use of heavy carbon producing fuels. These fuels also produce other noxious residue that is poisonous.



    While the US nuclear industry has produced no problems other than the meltdown as Three Mile Island, which resulted in an amount of radiation release of no more than a few chest x-rays equivalent, people are fearful. The government has given into that fear over the years, instead of helping to get them beyond it.



    New, far safer reactors have been designed over the years, and hopefully, fairly soon, we will see some of them built.
  • Reply 33 of 80
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    New, far safer reactors have been designed over the years, and hopefully, fairly soon, we will see some of them built.



    Ironically or sadly (your choose), the US government is helping other countries establish nuclear power plants but we are still on hold using less efficient systems because of this irrational fear.
  • Reply 34 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Ironically or sadly (your choose), the US government is helping other countries establish nuclear power plants but we are still on hold using less efficient systems because of this irrational fear.



    Many of those other countries have to import an even geater percentage of their energy than we do, so they're less likely to be put off by nuclear. We can look to France and Japan as examples. But, even energy producing countries are turning to nuclear for their own use.
  • Reply 35 of 80
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 877member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    The weather will be a factor in many of these. As far as cost goes, it's not likely that we will see oil and gas prices do anthing other than continue a rise, though it may be interrupted from time to time.



    This brings alternative energy pricing in line with conventional prices, even without governmental tax breaks.



    We are seeing ever larger wind plants coming in line, and will see that continue. New developments in solar cell technology are bringing the cost of that down quickly as well.



    Even semi-conventional energy sources such as shale oil extraction is looking good at these prices. While I don't like it, coal-oil extraction research is also accelerating, with better sulfur removal.



    I've always been a fan of nuclear power. My belief there, is that the danger from long term waste disposal is much less than from the continued use of heavy carbon producing fuels. These fuels also produce other noxious residue that is poisonous.



    While the US nuclear industry has produced no problems other than the meltdown as Three Mile Island, which resulted in an amount of radiation release of no more than a few chest x-rays equivalent, people are fearful. The government has given into that fear over the years, instead of helping to get them beyond it.



    New, far safer reactors have been designed over the years, and hopefully, fairly soon, we will see some of them built.





    It doesn't matter how much sulfur is removed from coal, it still puts 2000 tons of radioactive uranium and thorium into our atmosphere every year. That the dirty little secret about coal.



    Wind farms have been around for close to 50 years, and the power from them is still very expensive, and they only work when the wind blows.



    Solar requires a huge up front cost, and doesn't produce night when power is still needed. One can store the power in lead acid batteries, but that's a can of worms few want to open. The batteries are an environmental hazard that can be costly to clean up.



    We have oil, and we can find more, but it'll be real tough if we aren't allowed to drill for it. We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years, and our population hasn't stopped growing.



    We are letting whackos control our lives.
  • Reply 36 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Though their newest one, to be introduced in a month or two, doesn't.



    For a BlackEye, that will be a KISS of death.
  • Reply 37 of 80
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PS: I don't know about the rest of you but I seem to get asked about stocks every day by people that have all their money in saving accounts. The first thing I say is pick companies you love. If you love them then chances are others will too, but most importantly is that you're likely to want to put in the legwork of researching them. I'd like to know other's methods for picking stocks.



    I generally follow Buffet's suggestion of following companies that one understands or whose products one uses, with just a few exceptions... such as MSFT (which has been an under-performer for lo these many years). This strategy doesn't necessarily apply to mutual funds or the like, but it's a good starting point. The important thing is to get started early and be a regular investor. The ups and downs of the market are a good teacher also.



    Are there any stock/investing sites you gravitate toward? I sometimes follow Motley Fool, but I'm not a day trader and can't afford to risk huge chunks of my investments on high-risk stocks.
  • Reply 38 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PS: I don't know about the rest of you but I seem to get asked about stocks every day by people that have all their money in saving accounts. The first thing I say is pick companies you love. If you love them then chances are others will too, but most importantly is that you're likely to want to put in the legwork of researching them. I'd like to know other's methods for picking stocks.



    My first stock purchase, back in the 1970s, was Floating Point Systems (a computer add on manufacturing company for minicomputers specializing in, I don't remember what). I loved the company, knew what they did, knew their market, etc. etc. A little later, they sought me out to offer me a job (not because I had bought the stock [I assume] but because I knew what they did, knew their market, was a respected expert in their field, etc. I turned down the job offer. A few years later they were bankrupt and I lost my entire investment (not because I turned down the job, I am reasonably sure). Maybe I should have sold the stock when I "sold" the company, but I was young, and a young investor. Right now, my main STOCK, as opposed to MUTUAL FUND, holdings, are in APPL and HPQ, both companies I worked for, and both stocks I purchased through the employee stock purchase plans. I'd say this is the best method of researching a firm: if you are willing to work for them, invest in them.
  • Reply 39 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    It doesn't matter how much sulfur is removed from coal, it still puts 2000 tons of radioactive uranium and thorium into our atmosphere every year. That the dirty little secret about coal.



    So does oil.



    Quote:

    Wind farms have been around for close to 50 years, and the power from them is still very expensive, and they only work when the wind blows.



    The new equipment is nothing like what was used ten years ago, much less 50. New equipment works in lower wind speeds than did older designs. this has led to a resurgence in wind power. The areas that are usable are far larger than with older equipment. The newest plant will be about 300 MW in size.



    Quote:

    Solar requires a huge up front cost, and doesn't produce night when power is still needed. One can store the power in lead acid batteries, but that's a can of worms few want to open. The batteries are an environmental hazard that can be costly to clean up.



    Again, you are looking at older equipment. New equipment costs much less, is more efficient, is smaller, simpler, doesn't use lead cells, etc.



    Quote:

    We have oil, and we can find more, but it'll be real tough if we aren't allowed to drill for it. We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years, and our population hasn't stopped growing.



    We are letting whackos control our lives.



    It's pretty much agreed, even in the the energy industry, that most of the oil out there has been found. Even with modern sideways drilling technology, whatever oil there is to be found won't cover the vast needs of China, and India. Countries such as Vietnam (with 100 million people) will also have to be met. it used to be that only the principal industrial countries used oil ad gas in large quantities, but that club has been vastly expanded. Energy prices will continue to go up.



    That makes alternative energy viable.



    The small amounts of oil it is thought we have in Alaska, off the Florida cost, and in other areas isn't all that much. It's a small percentage of what we use each day. We imported an average of 20.7 million barrels of oil each day last year. Increased domestic supplies couldn't cover more than a small fraction of that, and it would take a decade, even if we started today, for those fields to be fully productive, and then, a couple of years later, their output would start a rapid decline.



    It's no panacea.



    New refineries are needed, but at what expense? Besides, while they can increase the flow of fuel, they can't add to it.
  • Reply 40 of 80
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David Stevenson View Post


    For a BlackEye, that will be a KISS of death.



    Oh, I don't know.
Sign In or Register to comment.