No worries ... let them both invest in bonds or dividend-paying stocks only. I love Apple, and I know lots of other do as well. I'll continue to make money off my Apple-ponzi-stock. LOL
I'm out of the office for now ... peace all.
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
No worries ... let them both invest in bonds or dividend-paying stocks only. I love Apple, and I know lots of other do as well. I'll continue to make money off my Apple-ponzi-stock. LOL
I'm out of the office for now ... peace all.
I think you're confusing me with an earlier poster. My training is as a mathematician, but I'm no bond trader. I have more interest in modelling stocks than investing in them. But I'm not saying that a non-dividend-paying stock can't be profitable in the short term, I'm just trying to be clear about when one is profiting from real company value.
The value of the shares is based on demand for the shares. Demand in shares which do not pay dividends is based on major investors working out what buying/selling pattern is most profitable. There is no altruistic "understanding" that trades must be based on company value, it's just a possibility which decreases the unpredictability of stock price variation. Although some investors react directly to corporate or even technical news, the need is merely to observe trading patterns and respond appropriately.Jeffacme said:
(And, on a macro level, it therefore remains Ponzi investment
.)Hey, there's plenty of money to be made in bonds in the past couple years too!
You could buy some REIT bonds at 15 cents on the dollar and they've rebounded into the 40-50 cent range recently.
AND AND AND! In addition to that 300% gain you get paid your coupon of (1/4) of 5% or so every quarter!
The value of the shares is based on demand for the shares. Demand in shares which do not pay dividends is based on major investors working out what buying/selling pattern is most profitable. There is no altruistic "understanding" that trades must be based on company value, it's just a possibility which decreases the unpredictability of stock price variation. Although some investors react directly to corporate or even technical news, the need is merely to observe trading patterns and respond appropriately.
(And, on a macro level, it therefore remains Ponzi investment
Explain to me what governs the value of bonds trading on the open market. Or allow me:
"The value of the bonds is based on demand for the bonds. Yada yada yada"
These things are all the same once they hit the market - investors buy and sell them based on what they think the market will do with that instrument the next day/month/year. Nobody, except little old (very rich) ladies who live on fixed incomes, buy them for the dividend payouts or for the coupon payments.
I can't believe the amount of nonsense!
The money is THERE, it EXISTS. In a ponzi scheme it does not. A part of it belongs to you, because you own shares of the company. You can't decide what the money is used for, that is up to the board. That's how all companies handing out shares work.
I think you're confusing me with an earlier poster. My training is as a mathematician, but I'm no bond trader. I have more interest in modelling stocks than investing in them. But I'm not saying that a non-dividend-paying stock can't be profitable in the short term, I'm just trying to be clear about when one is profiting from real company value.
The value of the shares is based on demand for the shares. Demand in shares which do not pay dividends is based on major investors working out what buying/selling pattern is most profitable. There is no altruistic "understanding" that trades must be based on company value, it's just a possibility which decreases the unpredictability of stock price variation. Although some investors react directly to corporate or even technical news, the need is merely to observe trading patterns and respond appropriately.
(And, on a macro level, it therefore remains Ponzi investment
You're still wrong. There's absolutely nothing magical about dividends since, as has already been stated, they can be reduced. And when dividends are raised, there's generally little impact on price. As far as stock modelling, good luck.
http://reports-archive.adm.cs.cmu.edu/anon/2003/CMU-CS-03-123.pdf
Good god, by this definition, owning real estate is a ponzi scheme.
A lot of you guys are mixing up numbers and facts. Market profit is not the same as market share. Comparing R&D spendings between Apple & Nokia is also largely unuseful - Nokia has at least twenty times more phones on the market than Apple - and they vary a lot in regard to design, OS-technology and functionality. Apple has one phone (or two, if you include last years model) in three RAM configurations.
I love what Apple has achieved. I love that they are overturning conventions and shaking up the market place. They are playing a different game. I hope they'll continue to innovate and optimize the iPhone (better reception & mic/speaker quality wanted).
I love what Apple has achieved. I love that they are overturning conventions and shaking up the market place. They are playing a different game. I hope they'll continue to innovate and optimize the iPhone (better reception & mic/speaker quality wanted).
Go out and get yourself a nice cheap Nokia and compare the value of what you get. If you decide the iPhone provided superior functionality then you weren't 'exploited'.
Higher-resolution screen too.
A coworker just recently purchased a Droid, and has been showing it off. While there are definitely aspects about the iPhone I think are still better, the Droid is definitely on-par in my opinion. I guess for some reason I'm always skeptical about Motorola products
That having been said, the screen on the Droid is a thing of beauty, and makes me wish Apple would introduce a higher-resolution screen in the future. The Droid's call quality also seems to be better. Hopefully it (and other up-and-coming products) can push Apple to truly improve the iPhone.
Brilliant
...but the competition is heating up; I'm hoping that iPhone OS 4 sees Apple innovate in the areas of notifications and home-screen widgets!
I'll be happy for SMP in the OS and revisions in what is already offered:
* More RAM - I cannot watch a 1hr interview video of D7 without me unable to bring up on screen controls to pause it, rewind, fast-forward. I can disable & re-enable the screen only to temporarily bring up the controls but they go away quickly. This is after the full 1hr is cached, btw with no other apps launched or used from cold startup.
* lock orientation of Safari
- I browse more in bed to fall asleep then I ever had with S60 (which already was 30mins), and I have to lie down on my left hand side so that it doesn't go vertical.
* iPod
- i'd like to re-arrange, add, and remove tracks in my playlists on the fly; not create odd named playlists that keep the name of initial track I create.
etc.
yeah ... I get it. I've read the same article about the 3 screens mantra. Although interesting its still limited and only speaks from a marketing side - user familiarity with the GUI from desktop to laptop to handheld (smartphone, MID, tablet or otherwise).
Symbian is going a HUGE overhaul and its got the largest of members by the big shots in the entire Industry. This is what you do NOT get; along with the best in battery life performance - despite what Apple would have you believe in terms of running multiple applications: SMP check!
symbian-foundation:
http://www.symbian.org/
http://blog.symbian.org/
http://ideas.symbian.org/homepagelight - contribute ideas for the platforms evolution (free membership & your voice does count, critical or not).
Yes coding for it is NOT for the faint of heart, but with Qt supporting Symbian^3 and moreso with Symbian^4 we'll see something serious.
TO be honest, I see the smartphone market going from its infancy (like a baby to a 5yr old) to its adolescence. Its coming of age - where the only feature/dumb phones you'll see is for 3 basic markets:
* The elderly [physical prowess challenged, or cognitively challenged to emerging and advancing technologies/ideas/paradigms: we'll all get there one day
] & hearing impaired.* Those that just need to talk, sms, mms someone else while on the go; nothing special just emergency contacts. These types of phones could evolve to simplistic watch phones, child gps tracker/kidnapping alert devices, etc.
* financially challenging/emerging markets which will quickly adapt.
In 2yrs or less we'll see the real juggernauts go at it, tooth and nail with huge entrenched provider, credit, media industry, and even educational support. Yes Apple is GREATLY poised for this already with iTunes and iTunes University - I just hope their in it for the long haul!
Apple needs to begin categorizing their phones the way that computers are categorized. Have a standard line and a Pro line, just like they do computers. Apple should plan on releasing the iPhone Pro next month so that I can buy it. True 1080p screen, 10MP camera with image stabilization, faster processor, double the RAM of the 3GS, and the ability to have up to three Apps open at the same time.
Apple should make the Pro line a profit-generating line. "$499 with contract." For those that want the $199 3GS, it will still be available.
Apple should make the Pro line a profit-generating line. "$499 with contract." For those that want the $199 3GS, it will still be available.
Symbian deserves to die, and will do so, slowly, over the next decade. It's just too much of a mess, and too difficult to create good software with (you even allude to this in your post).
Even Nokia is slowly phasing Symbian out, and beginning a transition to Linux (initially for their smart phones). The other phone manufacturers are going to jump ship to Android (this process has already begun with more fully featured phones), which has Google behind it and will only grow.
Apple needs to begin categorizing their phones the way that computers are categorized. Have a standard line and a Pro line, just like they do computers. Apple should plan on releasing the iPhone Pro next month so that I can buy it. True 1080p screen, 10MP camera with image stabilization, faster processor, double the RAM of the 3GS, and the ability to have up to three Apps open at the same time.
Apple should make the Pro line a profit-generating line. "$499 with contract." For those that want the $199 3GS, it will still be available.
I agree, although those specs are probably not all attainable without sacrificing some of the form factor..
Im glad though that Apple is not falling into the Nokia trap of having about a hundred different mediocre models available at one time. If Apple sticks to three or four iPhone models with different specs and memory, than we can all be pleased..
Market caps, short for "market capitalization", is equal to the price per share, multiplied by the number of shares. If Google's market caps is $180bn, then you could buy every single Google share if you had $180bn in cash to spend (apart from the fact that when you start buying on that scale, the share price would shoot up).
Another important number is "Enterprise Value", which is market caps, minus the cash of the company, plus the debt. Let's say a company has a market caps of $1bn, with $100m cash and $50m debt. So if you had $1bn in cash, you could buy all the shares, but then you would own the $100m that the company had and the $50m debt would be yours as well. So for exactly $950m you could get the company with no cash and debt free, and that is the "Enterprise Value".
Why is enterprise value important? Let's say Apple decided to pay $30bn dividend to its share holders. The shareholders pocket the money. But because Apple has now $30bn less cash, the company is worth $30bn less, so the market caps will drop by $30bn, and the share price will drop accordingly. However, the enterprise value is unchanged. So the "Enterprise Value" values the business itself, excluding cash and debt.