Good point. I reaslised this after I posted. The Intel transition is not a minor thing. I will just have to renew my hope for an expanded line-up once the transition's dust has settled. [/B]
I don't think Apple's lineup will ever have more than 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models, with 2 or 3 variations of each model, and possibly 2 or 3 colors. Apple has fully grasped "the tyranny of too much" (see www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog) for the consumer and has aimed to keep it very simple since Jobs' return. Yes, you can customize a few expected things but 6 major choices tops.
Just look at the iPod choices. They killed the very successful mini rather than let it coexist alongside the nano. Visit www.creative.com to see choice run amok.
And as I said earlier, if you want cheaper, you can go to the refurbished or clearance (old model) section of the online Apple store.
So yes, this may put off a few prospective purchasers, but Apple's betting that the simplicity wins over many more consumers.
I don't think Apple's lineup will ever have more than 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models, with 2 or 3 variations of each model, and possibly 2 or 3 colors. Apple has fully grasped "the tyranny of too much" (see www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog) for the consumer and has aimed to keep it very simple since Jobs' return. Yes, you can customize a few expected things but 6 major choices tops.
Just look at the iPod choices. They killed the very successful mini rather than let it coexist alongside the nano. Visit www.creative.com to see choice run amok.
And as I said earlier, if you want cheaper, you can go to the refurbished or clearance (old model) section of the online Apple store.
So yes, this may put off a few prospective purchasers, but Apple's betting that the simplicity wins over many more consumers.
I don't want a confusing array of choices but the Macbook really only comes in 2 choices. The 1.8ghz and the 2.0ghz models. The black one doesn't really present an additional configuration IMO. The only difference between it and the $1200 white version is color and cost.
For everyone screaming, "$200 more for black!?!?", please take note that the black model also has an 80GB drive as opposed to the 60GB in the $1299 while model. It costs (an admittedly inflated) $50 to upgrade the white MacBook from 60GB to 80GB. That simple drive upgrade levels the specs between the middle and the top model.
So, look on the bright side. Choosing black over white really "only" costs a $150 premium.
Seriously. Who cares about dedicated graphics cards. If you need that, you'll probably be getting a macbook pro b/c of the bigger screen anyways. Honestly, integrated graphics are fine. They save on power too. I'd take that.
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
Apple has categorically stated that they will NOT be sacrificing margins to gain marketshare. They have said this at least twice at quarterly conference calls. And it is a wise course of action, NOT lowering profits. Apple's shareholders react negatively when margins dip below the 23-25 percent range. To gain significant marketshare, they are working to sell Macs better in general. It is the slow way, but it is the only way they will be able to KEEP the share they gain.
Integrated Graphics for Gaming
Ya know, Doom 3 for the PC played just fine on my Mac mini dual core with BootCamp. No it was not set to super resolution, but most home PCs can't play the full resolution either (because most home PCs also have integrated graphics or low-end cards). Don't fall victim to the I wanna $4,000 computer for $1,200 mindset. Apple doesn't do loss leaders (see above).
Premium Pricing
I bought a black Macbook today and expect it in a week or so. Premium pricing is exactly what Apple needs to keep alive. Emotions and braggadocio matter. Who'd want a Jaguar if they were $9,000 (and built like they cost $9,000)? Might as well buy a Kia.
Melgross, not trying to start a fight here, but seriously, it seems like you will say anything other than admitting that you were wrong?
I was one of the ones who predicted $1099 and was shot down by you and many others. I never said anything about processor speed. I simply said they will all be dual-core and include iSight, mag-safe connectors, latch, a remote control and the base model will cost $1099.
Of course they could have delivered a model at $999 by including a slower single-core processor and dropping some of the specs, but all signs (and rumors) were indicating that Apple was adding functionality and features, even to it's entry level machines..
AAPL typically always drops on announcement day and then rebounds to a higher price within a week. Today's drop is nothing un-usual.. The market is also reacting to the new Creative lawsuit.
$1099 is not too high, I'd be willing to bet that within a few months time, this will become Apple's best selling computer. However, I do agree that paying $150 extra for the color black is bit of a stretch to say the least.
Anyways, instead of just arguing for arguments sake, it's time to just admit that you were wrong and move on. No big deal..
What are you talking about? I NEVER said that Apple would come out with a $999 model!
What I did say, is that I hoped that Apple would come out with a $999 model. get your facts straight. I never say what price Apple will come out with something. I onlt say what I think would be a good idea, and I give reasons.
Well, Apple has been dropping for a while. They came partly back, but then dropped again. The short sellers are killing every rally.
You can post information that directly contradicts his statements and he'll still never admit to being wrong.
Like how Mini sales are poor, sales of Apple computers constantly fell after Jobs' return, etc...
Frankly, if you are an edu buyer looking at 10K units MSRP has very little bearing on the price you pay. You will not be paying $1M more than a similarly spec'd machine from Dell which as near as I can tell is the Latitude D520:
14.1" display, GMA950, Core Duo 1.83, 512MB RAM, 40GB HD, BlueTooth. $1350 with edu discount in qty 1.
Vinea
Cut it out vinea. You know very well that I said that I hoped that Apple would have a $999 model, and how I thought they could do it. I never said that they would do it. Should do it, yes.
I have to agree with you, this is the second time I've called him on being wrong and he somehow tries to twist the information to make it appear that he was right all along.. He'd definitely make a good lawyer! (no offense, Melgross)
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over. I'm sure that Apple's market share will then increase, but I'm not too sure by how much. When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?
Apple are the only company who make laptops that legally (and simply) run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share, (and they really should want that), they have to expand their range, and not shrink it. There is a simply massive range of hardware choice if you can put up with running Windows. Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.
I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.
e.g:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)
3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.
Just got back from the Apple Emeryville store. Quick impressions:
--The black looks great. I understand people's misgivings, but there is that certain Apple 'something' that makes it really work. You know, just very well thought out and of a piece.
--The magnetic latch is terrific. Just the right amount of force to open. Plus, I really dig the new little-space-to-slip-your-finger-in divot where the latch used to be.
--Glossy screen. I dunno. Could be a deal breaker for me. It does enhance apparent contrast and brightness, but..... reflections. Also, the glossy screen appears to reduce the angle of acceptable off axis viewing. I'll go with the "Apple should have offered us a choice" on this one. OTOH, I could see where there's a certain 'pop' factor that might work for certain buyers. They still have the iBooks on display, and the new screen is much brighter and more vivid.
Still: why not let us choose, ala the MBP?
--Keyboard. I dunno. Shorter travel, not my preference. Not terrible, by any means, just a little less positive feedback on a keystroke. In addition to being flatish, it sits in a little well, so the screen is well clear of it when closed.
--Two fingered track pad "right click" works great, just like you'd want it to. With two fingered scrolling, the track pad is a marvel of usability.
--The two MacBooks on display would go into a coma when the lid was closed. After eventually reviving (a solid three or four minutes of fruitless poking), they would accept no input (cursor moves but no click, ditto keyboard). The speculation was that the very recently released Intel firmware update had something to do with this, but I'm a little surprised they let these puppies out into the wild with such a glaring defect. Not exactly a confidence booster. And, of course, it kept happening over and over because people wanted to close the lid to check out the magnetic latch.
--Weirdly, a guy was handing out copies of the fresh off the presses AI article about how the hard-drive is user swappable. Excellent news, if true, but: Kasper? Was that you?
Oh, come on! The price premium is there because Apple believes that many people are willing to pay more for that colour. Economics 101.
And Apple is right. I bet that I'm going to see a ton of these black Macbooks at my university's campus in September.
I'm interested to see one of these in person, because I'm not a fan of glossy screens. Otherwise the entry-level Macbook is perfect for my needs. I also suspect that the Mac Mini is going to receive an update shortly, or a price drop.
Cut it out vinea. You know very well that I said that I hoped that Apple would have a $999 model, and how I thought they could do it. I never said that they would do it. Should do it, yes.
You said $1099 would be a hard sell. We will see. There seems to be some pent up demand. $100 does not yet appear to be a deal killer.
I was pointing out you were wrong about the Mini sales, that Apple sales were in constant decline since Jobs returned and lately about Apple inventing the modern windowing system and not Xerox.
You make reasoned opinions but sometimes follow it with some wildly general assertion as support that is easily verified...or not as the case may be. Then you get defensive. Sometimes this is amusing. Sometimes mildly annoying.
I have yet to see you say that you were mistaken about anything which adds to the amusement factor in debunking certain pronouncements you state as "fact" to support your positions.
Vinea
PS Investing in individual stocks...especially ones like Apple with a good amount of volatility results in rollercoaster rides and upset stomachs. Blaming short sellers for killing rallys is somewhat amusing. In a rally shorters can go into panic buying to limit losses that tends to magnify rallies. Hence the term short covering rallys.
Its the folks taking quick profits that tend to nip weak rallys. Shorters can't do that...they buy stock to cover their position in a potentially dangerous rally. They have no shares to sell into a rally.
You said $1099 would be a hard sell. We will see. There seems to be some pent up demand. $100 does not yet appear to be a deal killer.
I was pointing out you were wrong about the Mini sales, that Apple sales were in constant decline since Jobs returned and lately about Apple inventing the modern windowing system and not Xerox.
You make reasoned opinions but sometimes follow it with some wildly general assertion as support that is easily verified...or not as the case may be. Then you get defensive. Sometimes this is amusing. Sometimes mildly annoying.
I have yet to see you say that you were mistaken about anything which adds to the amusement factor in debunking certain pronouncements you state as "fact" to support your positions.
Vinea
PS Investing in individual stocks...especially ones like Apple with a good amount of volatility results in rollercoaster rides and upset stomachs. Blaming short sellers for killing rallys is somewhat amusing. In a rally shorters can go into panic buying to limit losses that tends to magnify rallies. Hence the term short covering rallys.
Its the folks taking quick profits that tend to nip weak rallys. Shorters can't do that...they buy stock to cover their position in a potentially dangerous rally. They have no shares to sell into a rally.
You haven't been on the board that long. When someone points out something that is obviously correct, I will always admit my error.
But, despite what you might think, your information isn't exactly correct either. I don't have as much time to look all of these things up, as you seem to, but, I remember then quite well.
I've been investing for several decades, and have done quite well, thank you. I bought Apple at $16.93. now, after the split, I've done pretty well. But, Cramer, and others have been the ones who brought up the short selling. He said in one of his columns that he's never seen as much short selling as he's seen recently in Apple stock. and, it is continuing.
Comments
Originally posted by Mr. H
Good point. I reaslised this after I posted. The Intel transition is not a minor thing. I will just have to renew my hope for an expanded line-up once the transition's dust has settled. [/B]
I don't think Apple's lineup will ever have more than 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models, with 2 or 3 variations of each model, and possibly 2 or 3 colors. Apple has fully grasped "the tyranny of too much" (see www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog) for the consumer and has aimed to keep it very simple since Jobs' return. Yes, you can customize a few expected things but 6 major choices tops.
Just look at the iPod choices. They killed the very successful mini rather than let it coexist alongside the nano. Visit www.creative.com to see choice run amok.
And as I said earlier, if you want cheaper, you can go to the refurbished or clearance (old model) section of the online Apple store.
So yes, this may put off a few prospective purchasers, but Apple's betting that the simplicity wins over many more consumers.
Originally posted by mark2005
I don't think Apple's lineup will ever have more than 3 desktop models and 3 laptop models, with 2 or 3 variations of each model, and possibly 2 or 3 colors. Apple has fully grasped "the tyranny of too much" (see www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog) for the consumer and has aimed to keep it very simple since Jobs' return. Yes, you can customize a few expected things but 6 major choices tops.
Just look at the iPod choices. They killed the very successful mini rather than let it coexist alongside the nano. Visit www.creative.com to see choice run amok.
And as I said earlier, if you want cheaper, you can go to the refurbished or clearance (old model) section of the online Apple store.
So yes, this may put off a few prospective purchasers, but Apple's betting that the simplicity wins over many more consumers.
I don't want a confusing array of choices but the Macbook really only comes in 2 choices. The 1.8ghz and the 2.0ghz models. The black one doesn't really present an additional configuration IMO. The only difference between it and the $1200 white version is color and cost.
So, look on the bright side. Choosing black over white really "only" costs a $150 premium.
Originally posted by dmwogan
Seriously. Who cares about dedicated graphics cards. If you need that, you'll probably be getting a macbook pro b/c of the bigger screen anyways. Honestly, integrated graphics are fine. They save on power too. I'd take that.
Anyone who wants to even occasionally play 3D games cares. Most students will want to play games occasionally. I couldn't find any games at Aspyr that listed Intel Integrated Graphics as even minimum requirements, although some older games, such as Civ 3, had no minimum GPU. Most games require at least a Radeon 7500 and recommend at least a Radeon 9000. The iBooks with their "crappy" G4 can play most of the games from MacSoft, Aspyr, and Blizzard. The new Macbook, apparantly, cannot. Apple should offer a BTO with a decent, dedicated GPU, say a Mobility Radeon 9700. Even the Sims requires a decent GPU.
Apple has categorically stated that they will NOT be sacrificing margins to gain marketshare. They have said this at least twice at quarterly conference calls. And it is a wise course of action, NOT lowering profits. Apple's shareholders react negatively when margins dip below the 23-25 percent range. To gain significant marketshare, they are working to sell Macs better in general. It is the slow way, but it is the only way they will be able to KEEP the share they gain.
Ya know, Doom 3 for the PC played just fine on my Mac mini dual core with BootCamp. No it was not set to super resolution, but most home PCs can't play the full resolution either (because most home PCs also have integrated graphics or low-end cards). Don't fall victim to the I wanna $4,000 computer for $1,200 mindset. Apple doesn't do loss leaders (see above).
I bought a black Macbook today and expect it in a week or so. Premium pricing is exactly what Apple needs to keep alive. Emotions and braggadocio matter. Who'd want a Jaguar if they were $9,000 (and built like they cost $9,000)? Might as well buy a Kia.
Originally posted by solsun
Melgross, not trying to start a fight here, but seriously, it seems like you will say anything other than admitting that you were wrong?
I was one of the ones who predicted $1099 and was shot down by you and many others. I never said anything about processor speed. I simply said they will all be dual-core and include iSight, mag-safe connectors, latch, a remote control and the base model will cost $1099.
Of course they could have delivered a model at $999 by including a slower single-core processor and dropping some of the specs, but all signs (and rumors) were indicating that Apple was adding functionality and features, even to it's entry level machines..
AAPL typically always drops on announcement day and then rebounds to a higher price within a week. Today's drop is nothing un-usual.. The market is also reacting to the new Creative lawsuit.
$1099 is not too high, I'd be willing to bet that within a few months time, this will become Apple's best selling computer. However, I do agree that paying $150 extra for the color black is bit of a stretch to say the least.
Anyways, instead of just arguing for arguments sake, it's time to just admit that you were wrong and move on. No big deal..
What are you talking about? I NEVER said that Apple would come out with a $999 model!
What I did say, is that I hoped that Apple would come out with a $999 model. get your facts straight. I never say what price Apple will come out with something. I onlt say what I think would be a good idea, and I give reasons.
Well, Apple has been dropping for a while. They came partly back, but then dropped again. The short sellers are killing every rally.
Originally posted by vinea
You can post information that directly contradicts his statements and he'll still never admit to being wrong.
Like how Mini sales are poor, sales of Apple computers constantly fell after Jobs' return, etc...
Frankly, if you are an edu buyer looking at 10K units MSRP has very little bearing on the price you pay. You will not be paying $1M more than a similarly spec'd machine from Dell which as near as I can tell is the Latitude D520:
14.1" display, GMA950, Core Duo 1.83, 512MB RAM, 40GB HD, BlueTooth. $1350 with edu discount in qty 1.
Vinea
Cut it out vinea. You know very well that I said that I hoped that Apple would have a $999 model, and how I thought they could do it. I never said that they would do it. Should do it, yes.
Originally posted by solsun
I have to agree with you, this is the second time I've called him on being wrong and he somehow tries to twist the information to make it appear that he was right all along.. He'd definitely make a good lawyer! (no offense, Melgross)
You know, some of you guys are nuts.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I could not disagree more.
Newsflash: Apple's market share has not risen significantly since the major losses from 1995 to 1997. In fact, since 1997, it has continued to decline, albeit slowly (in 1997 Apple's worldwide share was about 5.6%, now it is less than 3%). Last year there was an upward blip, and recently it's levelled off whilst people wait for the Intel transition to be over. I'm sure that Apple's market share will then increase, but I'm not too sure by how much. When are Apple going to take some risks in order to significantly expand their market share?
Apple are the only company who make laptops that legally (and simply) run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share, (and they really should want that), they have to expand their range, and not shrink it. There is a simply massive range of hardware choice if you can put up with running Windows. Whilst Apple couldn't possibly offer an equivalent for every single model, this isn't 1997 any more. Apple can afford to have models that don't sell that many units. Once their market share starts to grow, the "less popular" models will naturally increase in unit volume.
I think Apple should have four laptop line-ups: "ultra-portable", "ultra-powerful" (more powerful than the MBpro, but also less portable), "portable & powerful" (what the MacBook Pros are), and "affordable" (what the MacBooks are). Apple could easily get away with only one config each in the "ultra-portable" and "ultra-powerful" segments, but they should offer significantly more options in the "portable & powerful" and "affordable" segments than they currently do.
e.g:
1) Why does the MacBook start at $1099? What you're getting for $1099 is amazing, but what if you don't want all that? Why not start the range with no iSight, no Front Row, slower CPU & smaller battery for $899?
2) Why do Apple artificially tie computing power with screen size? Why not offer a 15" screen option with slow processors and a plastic case? (i.e. a 15" MacBook)
3) Why do we have no options for 15" MBpro screen resolutions? (15.4" screens are available with up to 1680×1050 resolution)
The machines that Apple do make are brilliant, no doubt about it. But Apple's range is severely limited. With every year that passes, I get more and more frustrated that they have not expanded the number of options that they offer their customers.
Amen!
--The black looks great. I understand people's misgivings, but there is that certain Apple 'something' that makes it really work. You know, just very well thought out and of a piece.
--The magnetic latch is terrific. Just the right amount of force to open. Plus, I really dig the new little-space-to-slip-your-finger-in divot where the latch used to be.
--Glossy screen. I dunno. Could be a deal breaker for me. It does enhance apparent contrast and brightness, but..... reflections. Also, the glossy screen appears to reduce the angle of acceptable off axis viewing. I'll go with the "Apple should have offered us a choice" on this one. OTOH, I could see where there's a certain 'pop' factor that might work for certain buyers. They still have the iBooks on display, and the new screen is much brighter and more vivid.
Still: why not let us choose, ala the MBP?
--Keyboard. I dunno. Shorter travel, not my preference. Not terrible, by any means, just a little less positive feedback on a keystroke. In addition to being flatish, it sits in a little well, so the screen is well clear of it when closed.
--Two fingered track pad "right click" works great, just like you'd want it to. With two fingered scrolling, the track pad is a marvel of usability.
--The two MacBooks on display would go into a coma when the lid was closed. After eventually reviving (a solid three or four minutes of fruitless poking), they would accept no input (cursor moves but no click, ditto keyboard). The speculation was that the very recently released Intel firmware update had something to do with this, but I'm a little surprised they let these puppies out into the wild with such a glaring defect. Not exactly a confidence booster. And, of course, it kept happening over and over because people wanted to close the lid to check out the magnetic latch.
--Weirdly, a guy was handing out copies of the fresh off the presses AI article about how the hard-drive is user swappable. Excellent news, if true, but: Kasper? Was that you?
Originally posted by gloss
Because we're image whores.
Damn right we are. I don't care. I'll admit it. If/when I get a MacBook, I'll pay for the black. Soon as I see one in person, the deal is sealed.
-PepeDLux
Originally posted by mazzy
WHAT'S WITH THE PREMUM PRICE FOR BLACK!!??
The price premium is there because Apple believes that many people are willing to pay more for that colour. Economics 101.
Now the real question, do they come with black power adapters?
Originally posted by Nautical
Oh, come on! The price premium is there because Apple believes that many people are willing to pay more for that colour. Economics 101.
And Apple is right. I bet that I'm going to see a ton of these black Macbooks at my university's campus in September.
I'm interested to see one of these in person, because I'm not a fan of glossy screens. Otherwise the entry-level Macbook is perfect for my needs. I also suspect that the Mac Mini is going to receive an update shortly, or a price drop.
Originally posted by melgross
Cut it out vinea. You know very well that I said that I hoped that Apple would have a $999 model, and how I thought they could do it. I never said that they would do it. Should do it, yes.
You said $1099 would be a hard sell. We will see. There seems to be some pent up demand. $100 does not yet appear to be a deal killer.
I was pointing out you were wrong about the Mini sales, that Apple sales were in constant decline since Jobs returned and lately about Apple inventing the modern windowing system and not Xerox.
You make reasoned opinions but sometimes follow it with some wildly general assertion as support that is easily verified...or not as the case may be. Then you get defensive. Sometimes this is amusing. Sometimes mildly annoying.
I have yet to see you say that you were mistaken about anything which adds to the amusement factor in debunking certain pronouncements you state as "fact" to support your positions.
Vinea
PS Investing in individual stocks...especially ones like Apple with a good amount of volatility results in rollercoaster rides and upset stomachs. Blaming short sellers for killing rallys is somewhat amusing. In a rally shorters can go into panic buying to limit losses that tends to magnify rallies. Hence the term short covering rallys.
Its the folks taking quick profits that tend to nip weak rallys. Shorters can't do that...they buy stock to cover their position in a potentially dangerous rally. They have no shares to sell into a rally.
Originally posted by Nautical
The price premium is there because Apple believes that many people are willing to pay more for that colour. Economics 101.
White MacBook: Why do you cost more?
Black MacBook: For being black....
Originally posted by vinea
You said $1099 would be a hard sell. We will see. There seems to be some pent up demand. $100 does not yet appear to be a deal killer.
I was pointing out you were wrong about the Mini sales, that Apple sales were in constant decline since Jobs returned and lately about Apple inventing the modern windowing system and not Xerox.
You make reasoned opinions but sometimes follow it with some wildly general assertion as support that is easily verified...or not as the case may be. Then you get defensive. Sometimes this is amusing. Sometimes mildly annoying.
I have yet to see you say that you were mistaken about anything which adds to the amusement factor in debunking certain pronouncements you state as "fact" to support your positions.
Vinea
PS Investing in individual stocks...especially ones like Apple with a good amount of volatility results in rollercoaster rides and upset stomachs. Blaming short sellers for killing rallys is somewhat amusing. In a rally shorters can go into panic buying to limit losses that tends to magnify rallies. Hence the term short covering rallys.
Its the folks taking quick profits that tend to nip weak rallys. Shorters can't do that...they buy stock to cover their position in a potentially dangerous rally. They have no shares to sell into a rally.
You haven't been on the board that long. When someone points out something that is obviously correct, I will always admit my error.
But, despite what you might think, your information isn't exactly correct either. I don't have as much time to look all of these things up, as you seem to, but, I remember then quite well.
I've been investing for several decades, and have done quite well, thank you. I bought Apple at $16.93. now, after the split, I've done pretty well. But, Cramer, and others have been the ones who brought up the short selling. He said in one of his columns that he's never seen as much short selling as he's seen recently in Apple stock. and, it is continuing.