Apple's Stock Reaches Highest Price Since 2015

[melendezest]

I agree with you on Microsoft-- the new management is making some good decisions. Not so sure on Google though-- I get the sense Alphabet is what happens when you give a couple geeks a slush fund. Fun tech, no doubt, but I'm not sure what good it's doing for their business.

Well, I'm liking that Google is taking some risks. Real courage.

Apple seems to be spinning its "thin" wheels. Their visionless position WILL hurt them. Maybe not immediately (as seen by the stock price), but I think they're leaving a huge opening for competitors to swoop in.

I honestly hope they get their heads out and address what needs it, because their products could be greater than ever with little effort.

 

[cube]

I sure wonder what this market optimism is based upon. Reality? Rumor?

Cynicism

 

[Cosmosent]

There are rumors floating-around Silicon Valley that Tim Cook may lose his Board seat ... effectively, being "Put On Notice".

Thats probably why the stock price has been doing so well lately.

 

[keysofanxiety]

This kind of "success" will keep Timmy doing what he is doing.

By the time Apple realizes they've made a mistake, it'll be too late.

Both Microsoft and Google are playing the long game, and when the sh hits the fan, it'll be too late.

Apple is in chaos. This is nothing but a mask.

This article gives a good glimpse inside the madness:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-20/how-apple-alienated-mac-loyalists

Oh yeah, good old Bloomberg. A source whose opinion-masked-as-fact journalism has never bit them in the backside.

Incidentally, here's an article from them in 2001 about why Apple Stores won't work: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-sorry-steve-heres-why-apple-stores-wont-work

And another in 2006, about why Apple will fail: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...siness-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

If you're not getting it: the moral of the story is that anybody can find anything on the Internet which will back up their point of view, so citing speculative articles as fact is ridiculous.

 

[Stella]

These rumours were leaked by Apple, and picked up by others to inflate the share price?

 

[PJivan]

There are rumors floating-around Silicon Valley that Tim Cook may lose his Board seat ... effectively, being "Put On Notice".

Thats probably why the stock price has been doing so well lately.

Funniest post ever....macrumors it's better than Comedy Central

 

[melendezest]

Oh yeah, good old Bloomberg. A reliable source who are never wrong.

Incidentally, here's an article from them in 2001 about why Apple Stores won't work: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....eres-why-apple-stores-wont-work?client=safari

And another in 2006, about why Apple will fail: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ock-market-and-financial-advice?client=safari

If you're not getting it: the moral of the story is that anybody can find anything on the Internet which will back up their point of view, so citing speculative articles as fact is ridiculous.

All I'm getting is that Apple fans will find ANY criticism ridiculous, even if it makes sense.

I did not say anything was a fact. But the article does sound like they had someone on the inside speaking out.

Take it with a grain of salt, if you will. But if true, everything Apple has been doing lately makes sense.

NO ONE can deny the Mac has been largely ignored by Apple, which is what the article is about.

Let's see what they do this year, though.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Sell Now, before the 15% drop after the 1Q2017 conference call!

 

[Analog Kid]

Well, I'm liking that Google is taking some risks. Real courage.

Apple seems to be spinning its "thin" wheels. Their visionless position WILL hurt them. Maybe not immediately (as seen by the stock price), but I think they're leaving a huge opening for competitors to swoop in.

I honestly hope they get their heads out and address what needs it, because their products could be greater than ever with little effort.

As a technology consumer I'm glad Google does what they do, but I'm not sure I'd invest in them at this point.

Nothing in Apple's portfolio says growth to me, but nothing says collapse either. For the time being, they're a dividend stock.

Of course my intuition is a pretty mixed bag. Bought MSFT right when Ballmer announced retirement and it's outperforming GOOG and AAPL since. Sold AMZN when I got tired of Bezos making phones and tablets instead of focusing on their core retail business and 2 months later they broke out numbers for what turned out to be their other core business, AWS, and they've been going gang busters from that point forward, but I'm too stubborn to buy back in.

 

[guzhogi]

Waiting for the "Apple is doomed" comments.

In 3..2..1..

Don't forget "Where's the PowerBook G5?" comments. Oh wait, we haven't had those in a while.

 

[kodos]

I also think that short term Apple will be fine - meaning over the next five years or so, easily. But at some point the lack of innovation (if it continues) IS going to hurt them. Windows looked like it would never be demolished. But sitting on the monopoly is what got them in the end. Same with iOS / iPhone. Sooner or later someone will come out with disruptive technology that will eat Apple's lunch. At that point, Apple is doomed. Right now they are riding the post Jobs wave just like back in the Sculley days when Apple was incredibly profitable for a while ... before they got into trouble for a confusing and rather expensive and fragmented product lineup. The similarities are rather eerie.

 

[CB1234]

I sure wonder what this market optimism is based upon. Reality? Speculation?

Read 69Mustang post about "gambling"....

 

[dannyyankou]

Whoever bought a macintosh in 1996 probably wishes they spent that money on Apple shares instead. It'd be worth a million probably.

 

[JGRE]

High stock and good products are not necessarily related. Now Apple is making products for the mass, in the past they made products for the fans. The fans are left behind now.......
[doublepost=1484766685][/doublepost]

There are rumors floating-around Silicon Valley that Tim Cook may lose his Board seat ... effectively, being "Put On Notice".

Thats probably why the stock price has been doing so well lately.

If this would only be true......

 

[Bart Kela]

Whoever bought a macintosh in 1996 probably wishes they spent that money on Apple shares instead. It'd be worth a million probably.

Not quite.

In 1996, AAPL share prices fluctuated with a 52-week low close of $0.57. Let's say someone invested $2500 in AAPL at $0.60/share. Today that investment would be $500K (not including dividend payouts).

 

[dannyyankou]

Not quite.

In 1996, AAPL share prices fluctuated with a 52-week low close of $0.57. Let's say someone invested $2500 in AAPL at $0.60/share. Today that investment would be $500K (not including dividend payouts).

Oh, I was thinking more of their powermacs, which were over $6000

 

[robotica]

Just think of how much better it could be if Apple gave us a Mac mini

 

[citysnaps]

There are rumors floating-around Silicon Valley that Tim Cook may lose his Board seat ... effectively, being "Put On Notice".

Thats probably why the stock price has been doing so well lately.

Are you serious? That's a real knee-slapper!

Maybe you can point to a couple credible sources?

 

[Neepman]

After a visit to apple stores this weekend and seeing the crickets chirping at the watch and Macbook pro tables, I made the decision to sell during that next mystery uptick. And here we are.

 

[JCoe13]

Seems like it'll only decrease after the disappointment of new devices. Everyone's expectations are getting higher and higher as time goes on for the next generation devices expected this year...
[doublepost=1484771212][/doublepost]

This is good news, but imagine how good things could really be if they could still innovate and lead the industry

Times have changed. This isn't a Apple was better with Steve, but a Apple is different without Steve. He was a risky innovator willing to make enemies and never took failure as an answer. Tim is much more system oriented. When Tim was appointed CEO, he took Steve's chaos and systemized it into an operation that everyone could follow. With someone like Tim with more knowledge in sales and marketing, you lose a lot of the innovation that Steve brought to the table. The proof is in the pudding. Since 2011, the iPhone has changed looks only once (the 5 to 6) and while the camera has been one of the only things upgraded every year, that's about it. There hasn't been anything spectacular. Even with this, though, they are leading the market and provide great products that compete well with the competition. They aren't creating bad products all of a sudden, it's just different.

 

[Constable Odo]

I just don't quite understand why so many people are hoping for Apple to fail or are so critical about how poorly the company is doing. There are dozens of companies out there that are having problems maintaining revenue or increasing growth. It seems like common sense that the higher the revenue of the company, the harder it is to grow. My main grievance is how Apple fell from $130 well over a year ago and hasn't been able to recover while almost every other tech company on the planet was able to make huge gains. Apple must have really made some huge blunder for that to happen, but I can't really tell what that blunder was. It's possible Apple is the only company that didn't enter the cloud businesses race like all the other major tech companies did. I'm not sure why Apple ignored starting a cloud business. It could have acquired one just to diversify its cash flow since Wall Street thinks so highly of any company with a cloud business. I don't see how all cloud businesses have unlimited revenue growth but Wall Street seems to think so and I guess plenty of investors also think that way.

I think Apple is hurting its business by building desktop computers that can't be upgraded. The new MacMinis seem like a horrible idea when a user can't do anything with it once they buy it. It doesn't seem fair at all. I'd love to know Apple's reasons for this. The whole idea of the MacMini is a computer for people with not a lot of money to spend and practically forcing them to have to buy the highest cost model is downright crappy. I have one of the last quad-core i7 MacMinis and it's a wonderful and very useful media computer. Why Apple crippled all the MacMinis after that model makes no sense at all. Then there's this craziness of not allowing Apple desktop computers to use the latest and greatest full-slot GPUs. What is with that? It's like they don't want Apple users to have the best components available either through Apple or third-parties. Does that make any sense at all? All it hurts are the end users. That current MacPro is one of the saddest desktop computers I've ever seen. It doesn't seem to fit any category except as maybe some Final Cut Pro single purpose computer. What a waste. It was put in a corner and that's about it. Are there any sales figures about it. Does anyone have clue how many are being sold? They seem overly expensive for such a single purpose desktop computer that can barely be upgraded.

I still believe Apple is a terrific company, but it seems they're not trying very hard to bring in a wide variety of consumers. If Apple doesn't want market share and also only wants to build "green" computers then they should do something else to increase revenue. Apple is sitting on so much reserve cash. I would like them to use it to grow their business. I'm not asking them to give it to me. They should at least try to make the company more respectable to the masses even if they give some of that money to charity or by funding health research. Instead Apple isn't doing anything remarkable. It just seems to be coasting along and I don't understand the CEO for taking such an easy road. It strikes me as being lazy.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Well, I'm liking that Google is taking some risks. Real courage.

Apple seems to be spinning its "thin" wheels. Their visionless position WILL hurt them. Maybe not immediately (as seen by the stock price), but I think they're leaving a huge opening for competitors to swoop in.

I honestly hope they get their heads out and address what needs it, because their products could be greater than ever with little effort.

Difference between Apple and Google - Apple tries lots of things, waits until they're ready enough, then tells you about them and releases them. Google tries lots of things, tells you about them, then waits a while and maybe releases them...then waits until they're ready enough.

 

[Juicy Box]

I've always liked how willing people are to say Apple is doomed… without giving any sort of timeframe. I'm doomed, you're doomed, we're all doomed if you want to be vague about it. If you keep saying Apple will fail, eventually you'll have to be right.

It depends on how you define "Doomed".

The obvious one, Apple going bankrupt, or closing down, I don't believe anyone really thinks this will happen any time soon.

You could define "Apple is doomed" as changes that Apple is doing, it could be the Apple that many people have grown to love over the years is disappearing. Apple's stock price could double over the next few years, and their revenue could triple, but if Apple totally changed from the company that I have been a huge fan of for years, I would consider it "doomed"

If all the things you loved about something is no longer present, and the thing that remains is something that you dislike, would that thing be "doomed" to you?

 

[twocents]

Last month, Apple analyst Brian White said he "continues to believe Apple is one of the most underappreciated stocks in the world," partly due to "a never ending waterfall of 'gloom and doom' media reports" surrounding the company.

To be fair, that's part of the price you pay when in the public spotlight. Tim could sell 18K gold iPhone 8's for the same prices and there will still be people that are pessimistic and critical of them for lacking innovation. Can't please everyone but with that said, the Mac line is evidently lacking in how it currently stands and looks for the short-term

 

[Juicy Box]

Last month, Apple analyst Brian White said he "continues to believe Apple is one of the most underappreciated stocks in the world," partly due to "a never ending waterfall of 'gloom and doom' media reports" surrounding the company.

I have a long history of investing in companies that had a sudden loss of stock price, but financials seemed okay. I was pretty lucky with most of them, but I would strongly question Brian White's 185 target stock price for Apple... unless Apple does a reverse split.

Very rarely are the experts right about that. Anyone else remember all the experts saying that Apple was going to be a trillion dollar company back in 2012, right before the they took a tumble.

The stock market is very emotional, and there will always be those traders that rely on the "Greater Fool Theory".