While I might relent and say that one-button mouse maybe, just maybe, is a matter of personal preference, the CPU is another story. Read on:
Who, in 1981, could have predicted that Motorola would lag the mhz race in Y2K? Or even 1984 for that matter?
I'm not talking 1981 or 1984. By 1989 it was clear Motorola had lost the race. That was the time to say "betting on Motorola once seemed sensible, but no longer so. Let's pick up the pieces and move as smoothly as possible to the intel architecture".
AppleTalk was pure genius. At that time (1985-1990), Wintel lackies had nothing to compare to it. We don't care about that anymore. We all use Ethernet.
Yes AppleTalk was brilliant. But at some point Ethernet won. Did Apple pick up the pieces and move on? No. In fact Apple was the last major manufacturer to support TCP/IP.
No score on the processor. Two systems. Roughly comparable performance. One has a heater and a high clock rate. The other is a model of efficiency with a lower clock rate. Neither is a screw-up as a choice for desktop or laptop. Hmmm... well the Intel might be considered a screw-up for laptops.
Why hasn't Apple been aggessive in entering the PDA market? I recognize their previous effort didn't work out, but times have changed. The PDA market is a high-growth, high- margin industry -- especially with the looming 3G in hand-held devices. Where is Woz when you need him... firstname.lastname@example.org
"Believe me, every employee at Apple right now is accutely aware of this fact."
Good, that's what I want.
Let's keep it that way. When the company performs to expectations, they will profit from their existing options.
Socialism is dead.
That's not exactly accurate. If the employees have options priced at 45, they could generate a 100% return from this point and not see any return. That just isn't matching incentives to desired actions.
Repricing options is a taxable event, but granting new options at the current price is not. It is also completely consistent with shareholder goals.
As for socialism being dead, you clearly aren't watching the same presidential debates I am. :)
Aloe has hundreds, perhaps even thousands of dollars invested in AAPL. He must stick around and look out for his investment. Give him credit for one thing. As bearish as he is, he knows that Apple is a good investment right now. For some small reason, that makes me feel more secure in my small position.
Herb, good post. If the quarter was ruined in July then Anderson shouldn't have been so positive in mid-September on his Australian swing. I've seen this too many times--business is soft and a company just "hopes" that the final month will rescue it.
Seems like a great time to buy AAPL but it would also be nice to hear what they have to say at the conference call for more certainty. I'd like to know of the investment gains are going to continue as they have the past two years as well.
An interesting snip from a Bear-ons article (not by Malone):
<<Last June, Apple quietly decided to fire some 50 educational resellers and shift distribution to a company-run, direct-order Website. In a sort of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't move, Apple appears to have made the right decision, but at the wrong time. It would have been far wiser for the company's impatient chief executive, Steve Jobs, to have waited until after the critical summer and fall quarters before announcing the transition. Here's why: Jilted resellers appear to have stopped pitching Apple, working instead to solidify their administrative contacts at the schools in hopes of saving their businesses. The result: a lousy quarter.
For a decade or so, the educational reseller program had been a winner for Apple. Once 300 strong, the network had been consolidated to 50 productive resellers. The brokers would sell the machines and servers, and Apple would ship direct from its warehouses, with the resellers taking healthy cuts as commissions. The arrangement worked well. But Wall Street analysts constantly harangued Apple for forfeiting too much of its margins to resellers.>>