And the phone itself is an eyesore.But that Android OS is beautiful AND less claustrophobic.
Let's see ...
iPhone 3G
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Widens Lead Over Nokia as Most Profitable Handset Manufacturer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's see ...
iPhone 3G
*LTD* said:
I don't know what would be the most polite way to laugh at this.
Anyway, with phones like the N900 (which is a freaking beast) and the HTC HD2 (gorgeous screen, awesome customized WM6.5 and Sense UI) and the HTC Droid Eris you cannot say things like that anymore.
Now before LTD goes ahead and does what he always does (posting over 9000 links to the iPhone's marketshare and whatnot), let me just say that ultimately, the best phone out there is not the phone you like and it's not the phone I like. Sales/market share don't define the "best" product, and specially when it comes to cellphones this is just a matter of personal taste. I happen to think HTC phones are the most classy (and expensive) phones out there.
That being said, other than the N900, everything from nokia is pretty meh.
You said "why, precisely, should anyone care about Apple's future earning potential when they don't pay dividends?"
My response was based on your question. Investors care about future earning "potential" because good earning potential means good future stock value "potential". Dividends are nice, but many people invest for the growth of the stock. By your definitions a company like WYNN resorts must be a ponzi scheme because they have not payed a divided. They will begin paying one next year so I presume the ponzi scheme will suddenly become real ... no ?!?
The growth in the value of their stock price is what is produced for the shareholders. I guess Warren Buffett isn't really a multi-billionaire despite the fact that his ponzi scheme known as Berkshire Hathaway ($100,000/share) just bought the ponzi scheme known as Burlington Northern, and is a huge share holder in other ponzi schemes like Coca Cola (pays a dividend), Wells Fargo (pays a dividend) Goldman Sachs (pays a dividend) to name just a few.
I own a Mac Pro. I also own a Nokia E71, that I just recently bought. The iPhones never been an option for me because:
-games and ipod function cut into battery life. id rather have a solid dedicated device for such purposes (Cowon S9, a proper mp3 player)
-thick
-no real tactile keyboard
I absolutely HATE the touch keyboard, i cant type on that miserable thing for the life of me, its one mistake after another on it. The size of the E71 is also a major bonus for me, its really slim, so, unlike the iphone, it doesnt look like a brick sticking out of my pants pocket.
-games and ipod function cut into battery life. id rather have a solid dedicated device for such purposes (Cowon S9, a proper mp3 player)
-thick
-no real tactile keyboard
I absolutely HATE the touch keyboard, i cant type on that miserable thing for the life of me, its one mistake after another on it. The size of the E71 is also a major bonus for me, its really slim, so, unlike the iphone, it doesnt look like a brick sticking out of my pants pocket.
You are right about the iPhone, but to be fair, the initial Mac received many wows, but didn't ignite very much. The personal computing revolution was ignited by the appropriately-called PC.
I don't know exactly what your point was (other than hyping the iPhone competition), but with you last sentence you pretty much agree with everything that people are saying here. This is not about Pre, HTC, how great the iPhone is, my grandfather's watch, but more about how bad Nokia is.
Ah, thanks for the link!
Personally I think it's great that Apple's stock is doing so well. The father of a friend of mine has been a very great fan of Apple since the 80s, and he picked up a considerable amount of stock during the mid-to-late 90s when their stock pretty much hit its lowest. Let's just saying he's doing fairly well these days, lol.
It just seems strange (to me) though that people consider Apple "larger" than the likes of IBM or GE, purely off of stock price/market capitalization, or Google, whose stock is still over twice that of Apple, and yet has a much, much lower volume.
Whatever makes investors happy though
Actually, I believe the post began over Apple's iPhone profits versus Nokia's phone profits at approximately a 3:2 ratio, despite Apple's marketshare being much smaller.
Ah, thanks for the link!
Personally I think it's great that Apple's stock is doing so well. The father of a friend of mine has been a very great fan of Apple since the 80s, and he picked up a considerable amount of stock during the mid-to-late 90s when their stock pretty much hit its lowest. Let's just saying he's doing fairly well these days, lol.
It just seems strange (to me) though that people consider Apple "larger" than the likes of IBM or GE, purely off of stock price/market capitalization, or Google, whose stock is still over twice that of Apple, and yet has a much, much lower volume.
Whatever makes investors happy though
Don't confuse stock price with market cap ... Investors value AAPL 30% higher that GOOG ($182B vs. 133B). Apple's stock price may be half that of Google, but the value of the company has Apple at a 30% premium.
Unlike a regular investment scheme, which pays profits to investors, a Ponzi scheme is one which pays returns to investors from their own money and from the money of later investors. That's the essence of a Ponzi scheme, and the essence of a stock which doesn't pay dividends. Company shares add the complexity that value is knocked down a bit, then up again, forming a boring-to-analyse fractal which increases medium term sustainability but which does not mean the company is creating anything for its shareholders.
The two bank notes detail a promise. The pieces of paper themselves have almost no value. I could destroy a bank note and, in theory (i.e. providing I have proof), I could get it replaced.
Getting there. A company which aims to pass profits on to its owners, even if it doesn't do so today, is creating wealth. A company which issues shares while displaying no intention of sharing profits is catalysing a Ponzi scheme.Only in the same way Beanie Babies increase in value, as discussed above, unless the company will eventually pay some of its money to its owners. Otherwise, it's arbitrary whim to decide to base the buying and selling of Apple stock on Apple's growth/earnings.
Crazy. CNN Money shows $180.0B http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=GOOG (which is where I got the earlier value from)
Wonder which one is correct, lol.
Edit - Seems like using the Stock Price * Shares outstanding formula, CNBC is.
And wow, Apple has a lot of shares outstanding.
Edit 2 - Nevermind, Apple's is nothing compared to the likes of GE and Microsoft, lol.
Exactly. Funny how people love it when Apple makes a huge profit but hates it when Microsoft or any other company does the same.
But hey.. as a shareholder.. I say Go Apple!!
I'm surprised to hear someone participating in the greatest capitalistic exercise in the history of the world (the US stock market) voice such a communistic feeling. No one is being exploited here my friend.
The one important "fact" you seem to be missing in your whole "ponzi scheme" theory is that in a ponzi scheme "NOTHING" exists, only the illusion of something. A magician "appears" to make a girl levitate or an elephant disappear. In the stock market (i.e. AAPL stock), there is an actual company ... cash, buildings, products, employees, distribution systems, equipment, etc., which give the stock it's value (i.e. promise ... see your next point on currency).
You can do the same thing with a stock certificate ... but the certificate is backed by the promise that you own a share (percentage) of the company. With currency today, it can be replaced by the government with another piece of paper and ink, but it has little to no ACTUAL value, since it is no longer guaranteed by the gold/silver the constitution requires. What gives the American currency its "perceived" value (i.e. "promise") is the American people giving a potion of what is theirs to allow the government to continue to issue government bonds and t-bills (promises to the purchasers of repayment with interest). Remember, those are promises based on "future potential earnings" (i.e. taxes) which the government is hoping to bring in at some point in the future before the bills/bonds mature. I guess that makes the American currency ... as well as that of other nations ... the largest ponzi schemes out there.
Have you got a quote from Apple that states they NEVER intend to pay a dividend? If so, please supply a link. If you simply don't trust non-dividend paying companies, I encourage you to avoid investing in them and let the rest of us choose our own investment strategies. I respect your right to disagree with those of us who love companies like Apple (even without a dividend at this time), but don't treat us like we are stupid because of our preference.
Even a company paying a dividend can be worthless. Example: Government bailouts of the largest banks, insurers, etc. were all dividend paying companies until they collapsed by selling the Mortgage Backed Securities (in and of themselves a HUGE ponzi scheme by your definitions).
I think we should just agree to disagree at this point. Your point is noted and completely disagreed with by me (and millions of other AAPL investors). Peace.
Unlike a regular investment scheme, which pays profits to investors, a Ponzi scheme is one which pays returns to investors from their own money and from the money of later investors. That's the essence of a Ponzi scheme, and the essence of a stock which doesn't pay dividends. Company shares add the complexity that value is knocked down a bit, then up again, forming a boring-to-analyse fractal which increases medium term sustainability but which does not mean the company is creating anything for its shareholders.
The two bank notes detail a promise. The pieces of paper themselves have almost no value. I could destroy a bank note and, in theory (i.e. providing I have proof), I could get it replaced.
Only in the same way Beanie Babies increase in value, as discussed above, unless the company will eventually pay some of its money to its owners. Otherwise, it's arbitrary whim to decide to base the buying and selling of Apple stock on Apple's growth/earnings.
Thank you. I had the clear perception of this but was unable to properly explain due to my lack of knowledge. I totally concur with you.
Regardless of the actual numbers ... AAPL is one of the largest tech companies in the world, and may achieve the largest market capitalization in the years to come. When you consider where Apple computer was before Steve Jobs returned (on the verge of bankruptcy), they have come a long way. This is probably the reason Forbes recently names Steve Jobs "CEO of the Decade".
Making money from wild stock price increases when the stock does not pay dividends is irrational/unenlightened selfishness, getting in on a sophisticated version of a Ponzi scheme. Of course you'll make money if you get in early, but so what? American capitalism is (was
Ask yourself: when you buy stock, what are you actually buying? Why does the price go up? If your answer is not "because the product I am buying is working for me" then you might as well be trading in collectibles.
Wait wait wait wait wait...
Are you telling me, us all, that you are a bond trader who bought bonds for the coupon payouts? Boy, you're a unique one!
I'm betting that you tried to buy bonds and then sell them at higher prices. That is to say... the same thing you're decrying here.
Yes, bonds are more easily valued at any given moment because they are a contract on future payments, much more than stocks are, but they trade just like stocks do and no bond TRADER is buying a bond and sitting back and holding it.
Cmon smart guy, own up to it. There are other people here with credentials like yours, you can't just go throw around claims expecting no one to see through the obvious holes.
Thank you for the support. This is the reason I ended my conversation with my last reply to him. The argument is futile. The whole world is one big ponzi scheme I guess. LOL
But if for some reason their stock were to go down, say, on a few bad quarters, their market capitalization would likely sink very quickly, right? (just using the Stock Price * Outstanding Shares equation)
I very much doubt anything like that would happen, but it just seems like corporations such as IBM or Microsoft are a "safer" investment of sorts (I may be remembering it wrong, but didn't Apple's stock previously hover around $200+, only to take a large drop down to the $70s, and then build itself back up again?)
Edit - Eh, I guess not necessarily, as the others have had drastic changes as well (though it doesn't seem to have been as large of a decrease then increase as Apple). Either way, it's all a big risk I guess, lol.
You are correct! However, a few bad quarters for Google, IBM, United Technologies, JP Morgan or any other company, and the same thing would happen to them. Apple is a well-run, well-designed, well-managed company that most professional analysts (not to mention other CEOs ... except for perhaps Apple's competition ... LOL) believe to be one of the best companies in existence today. They create some of the best-designed and most in-demand products on the market today. Not many other companies have the loyalty of their existing base and the growth of a new base in the way that Apple does.
Other stocks took a similar dive, mostly based on fear. Examples: Goldman Sachs fell from over $200 to under $80. Warren Buffett bought a ton of warrants (right to purchase) for the stock at $115/share. People questioned him when the stock fell to under $80. Now he looks like a genius since the stock is up over $170 again. Citibank fell from $60 to about $1. It's back to $4 now. Think of Las Vegas Sands (with giant hotels and casinos in Las Vegas, Macau (the largest gambling region in the world), Bethlehem, PA, and Singapore to name some of their holdings). In September 2007, their stock was $149.00 per share. In March 2009, their stock fell to $1.38 per share. Did the company suddenly lose 99.3% of it's casinos or hotels, customers or assets? No, they have a lot of debt, but people just got scared and ran. Today the stock is back to about $17/share. Bet you wish you had bought it at $1.38.
I've heard a lot of people call the stock market a ponzi scheme. They usually have their money under their mattresses. But a "former" bond trader? Cmon....
The Veri Fallacy
A ponzi Scheme is a falsehood based on nothing of value.
Stocks detail a promise and though the price fluctuates each certificate has a value equal to the current share price. The pricing may seem capricious but it is in fact a market where one buyer and one seller exchange the certificate for an agreed price. That is the definition of a transaction.
Underlying companies do have value and while stocks are not secured like bonds. The value of the shares is based upon the actual and perceived value of the underlying company. The shares trade and are exchanged based upon this understanding. To deny this mechanism is to reject the very nature of the market. The idea that simply adding a dividend which is in fact just another way to return value somehow makes the investment real is to deny the fact that dividends are cut and eliminated regularly. At what point does a dividend cut become a Ponzi Scheme?
Your Beanie bay example is accurate in that it details the semantics of the market. If we agree that a Beanie baby is valuable and I pay that value in exchange for the Beanie we have a trasnaction.
If you do not like the market don't play.
A ponzi Scheme is a falsehood based on nothing of value.
Stocks detail a promise and though the price fluctuates each certificate has a value equal to the current share price. The pricing may seem capricious but it is in fact a market where one buyer and one seller exchange the certificate for an agreed price. That is the definition of a transaction.
Underlying companies do have value and while stocks are not secured like bonds. The value of the shares is based upon the actual and perceived value of the underlying company. The shares trade and are exchanged based upon this understanding. To deny this mechanism is to reject the very nature of the market. The idea that simply adding a dividend which is in fact just another way to return value somehow makes the investment real is to deny the fact that dividends are cut and eliminated regularly. At what point does a dividend cut become a Ponzi Scheme?
Your Beanie bay example is accurate in that it details the semantics of the market. If we agree that a Beanie baby is valuable and I pay that value in exchange for the Beanie we have a trasnaction.
If you do not like the market don't play.
That's why I finally gave up trying to reason logically.
Thanks for an additional voice in support of my position.
Shiner is the one who claimed to know something about bonds. I'm not sure Veri claimed to know anything.