What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Companies you believe in (1 Viewer)

Took a small position yesterday afternoon after the news that the rumor of the production cuts was all BS. Wish I had gotten in this morning instead when it sagged down below 130, but I guess that's just splitting hairs.

The iphone is all the news right now, but I'm very encouraged by the pickup in their pc business and the further growth of itunes. Because it's already so high I'm not sure I see the gangbuster type gains in its future that it's had the last few years, but I still think it will outperform the overall market.

 
AT&T. Love'em or hate'em, they're here to stay. And they keep gobbling up other companies. DSL service is great and they don't care about bit torrent (at least not yet). And everyone loves only writing three letters on check payments.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Took a small position yesterday afternoon after the news that the rumor of the production cuts was all BS. Wish I had gotten in this morning instead when it sagged down below 130, but I guess that's just splitting hairs.The iphone is all the news right now, but I'm very encouraged by the pickup in their pc business and the further growth of itunes. Because it's already so high I'm not sure I see the gangbuster type gains in its future that it's had the last few years, but I still think it will outperform the overall market.
Apple has called a press conference for a "strictly Mac-related" event on August 7th. Obvious speculation is the announcement is the unveiling of a completely redesigned new iMac.
 
More solid product releases from Apple announced today. iMac refreshes, iWork and iLife '08's. Continued expansion in the computer market, laptops, got a foot in the cell phone industry, leopard on the horizon, a refresh of ipods coming up soon, iphone 2.0 and touchscreen ipod's on the horizon, laptops with flash drives, LED screens...man, the stars are really aligning at Apple to push Microsoft in the next few years.

Seems like it's a train going strong, producing quality product after quality product, with an occasional breakthrough product (ipod, iphone). The nice thing for investors though, long term investors, is that the stock is pretty volatile, and that if you're looking for a good entry point, or a point to add more, it seems that just waiting for a bit will produce a big dip that you can cash in on.

I'm still in heavy long term, and can't wait to see what Apple, and the stock price, will do over the next few years.

 
Agreed, awesome, awesome stuff. They simply make a better productive and are more innovative than Microsoft. They will give MS a run for their money.

 
Agreed, awesome, awesome stuff. They simply make a better productive and are more innovative than Microsoft. They will give MS a run for their money.
While Apple is a good, solid consumer company on a big upswing, its not in the same stratosphere as MSFT. Vista installs past the entire Apples Install base within 5 weeks of release. http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/07/27...ows_everywhere/

Microsoft on Mac gains: Apple's not even close

At a conference of analysts and reporters yesterday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and chief operating office Kevin Turner took pains to point out that their operating system is still far and away the biggest in the world. Despite recent news of a sales spike in Macs, Ballmer noted that the company is on track to reach 1 billion Windows users by 2008.

"If you stop and just think about that, parse that for a second, by the end of our fiscal year '08, there will be more PCs running Windows in the world than there are automobiles, which is at least to me kind of a mind-numbing concept," Ballmer said.

But it was Turner who brought the real heat on Apple. Windows Vista, Microsoft's latest OS, has sold 60 million copies since it was launched at the end of January; 40 million of those were sold in 100 days. "By our math, we eclipsed the entire installed base of Apple in the first five weeks that this product shipped," Turner said.

He also claimed that Vista saw one of the safest launches of any recent OS. "There have been just 12 serious vulnerabilities reported with Vista over the first 180 days versus 25 for Windows XP over the same period. This number is also lower than for Apple and other operating systems. We have also seen 21 percent fewer support calls for Vista versus XP over the same period," he said.

In the first six months after Apple's last operating system -- Mac OS Tiger -- was released, the company fixed more than 50 flaws, several of them security threats. Apple does not assess the danger of each threat, so it's unclear how many would have been comparable with the flaws Turner is counting in Vista.
 
Agreed, awesome, awesome stuff. They simply make a better productive and are more innovative than Microsoft. They will give MS a run for their money.
While Apple is a good, solid consumer company on a big upswing, its not in the same stratosphere as MSFT. Vista installs past the entire Apples Install base within 5 weeks of release. http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/07/27...ows_everywhere/

Microsoft on Mac gains: Apple's not even close

At a conference of analysts and reporters yesterday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and chief operating office Kevin Turner took pains to point out that their operating system is still far and away the biggest in the world. Despite recent news of a sales spike in Macs, Ballmer noted that the company is on track to reach 1 billion Windows users by 2008.

"If you stop and just think about that, parse that for a second, by the end of our fiscal year '08, there will be more PCs running Windows in the world than there are automobiles, which is at least to me kind of a mind-numbing concept," Ballmer said.

But it was Turner who brought the real heat on Apple. Windows Vista, Microsoft's latest OS, has sold 60 million copies since it was launched at the end of January; 40 million of those were sold in 100 days. "By our math, we eclipsed the entire installed base of Apple in the first five weeks that this product shipped," Turner said.

He also claimed that Vista saw one of the safest launches of any recent OS. "There have been just 12 serious vulnerabilities reported with Vista over the first 180 days versus 25 for Windows XP over the same period. This number is also lower than for Apple and other operating systems. We have also seen 21 percent fewer support calls for Vista versus XP over the same period," he said.

In the first six months after Apple's last operating system -- Mac OS Tiger -- was released, the company fixed more than 50 flaws, several of them security threats. Apple does not assess the danger of each threat, so it's unclear how many would have been comparable with the flaws Turner is counting in Vista.
It's not because it's better, it's because Microsoft has had a near stranglehold on the business sector for some time. Expect that to change in the next few years, as more and more people become conscious of the benefits of using macs in their personal lives, and also professionally, and I'm not just talking graphic design.It'll take a while, maybe another two years or so to get into the business world in any significant way, but Microsoft's star is waning while Apple's is waxing.

And regarding security for Xp vs Vista, Vista is a polished up version of XP, which has been out for ages. I wouldn't expect them to have many security flaws as they've been working on the same thing for over 7 years. Apple however, continues to innovate and bring dramatically new things to the table at each iteration of the OS X.

 
Those new iMacs are powerful machines. I just hope they are bringing out new iPods soon so the other ones drop in price a little bit as I would like to buy one.

There have been newer versions of the recent generation but there have not been new iPods since October of 2005. I guess Apple has not needed to come out with anything new on the iPod front but with some of the new iPhone stuff and these new iMacs... the iPod has to be next, right?

 
It'll take a while, maybe another two years or so to get into the business world in any significant way, but Microsoft's star is waning while Apple's is waxing.
Given their respective market shares, isn't that sort of like saying the Raiders will be better this year?(Current iMac owner and long time Apple customer.)J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those new iMacs are powerful machines. I just hope they are bringing out new iPods soon so the other ones drop in price a little bit as I would like to buy one. There have been newer versions of the recent generation but there have not been new iPods since October of 2005. I guess Apple has not needed to come out with anything new on the iPod front but with some of the new iPhone stuff and these new iMacs... the iPod has to be next, right?
I don't know man, Zune 2 is on it's way.
 
It'll take a while, maybe another two years or so to get into the business world in any significant way, but Microsoft's star is waning while Apple's is waxing.
Given their respective market shares, isn't that sort of like saying the Raiders will be better this year?(Current iMac owner and long time Apple customer.)J
Well, consider Apple a team, and Steve Jobs the coach. They went into rebuilding mode quite a few years ago, and his new direction and coaching style has paid huge dividends, and they went from a team that nobody thought could do anything, to one that has made huge strides recently.Also, consider the ipod and the iphone WR's on his new team. He's solidified his line with great personnel around him. He has excellent standout star receivers in the iPod and iPhone, as well as a great TE in the laptop lines, but all this time and effort in improving the receiving core has meant the running game has been neglected.But the thing is, with the success of the iPod, iPhone, and the quality of the laptops, it's going to open up the running game for the business market. People focused on the great consumer products will be more willing to try out their business products, which are also of high quality. Pretty soon, Apple will be hitting on all cylinders and will contend for the title against the perpetual giant of Microsoft.Maybe Apple is like this years Dallas Cowboys. This could be the year all of the rebuilding pays off, with both offense and defense living up to their potential and going all the way to the superbowl :thumbup: .
 
a few questions

Is apple really going after the business world? It appears they have clearly not gone in that direction. Not trying to argue, I'm just curious.

How is the x64 support?

Why not just release OSX for the PC and be price competitive with MS? (or I guess the real question is why do they make more money with their current model). I don't see them having a shot in hell at the business market until they are price competitive.

 
It'll take a while, maybe another two years or so to get into the business world in any significant way, but Microsoft's star is waning while Apple's is waxing.
Given their respective market shares, isn't that sort of like saying the Raiders will be better this year?(Current iMac owner and long time Apple customer.)J
Well, consider Apple a team, and Steve Jobs the coach. They went into rebuilding mode quite a few years ago, and his new direction and coaching style has paid huge dividends, and they went from a team that nobody thought could do anything, to one that has made huge strides recently.Also, consider the ipod and the iphone WR's on his new team. He's solidified his line with great personnel around him. He has excellent standout star receivers in the iPod and iPhone, as well as a great TE in the laptop lines, but all this time and effort in improving the receiving core has meant the running game has been neglected.But the thing is, with the success of the iPod, iPhone, and the quality of the laptops, it's going to open up the running game for the business market. People focused on the great consumer products will be more willing to try out their business products, which are also of high quality. Pretty soon, Apple will be hitting on all cylinders and will contend for the title against the perpetual giant of Microsoft.Maybe Apple is like this years Dallas Cowboys. This could be the year all of the rebuilding pays off, with both offense and defense living up to their potential and going all the way to the superbowl :thumbup: .
In this analogy, Apple did the equivalent of switching leagues, or maybe even sports.
 
I just bought a good sized position in a company called Perini Corp, PCR, which is a construction company that is literally #1 on my analyst's list. It's down something catastrophic like 25% in two days on absolutely nothing printed except for the downturn in housing. Thing is, this is a construction services company that does major products like industrial buildings, malls, corporate centers, casinos... No ostensible reason for this downturn besides hysteria. I see an insider sold a bit of stock, nothing major, on the 16th... Other than that, nothing.Company has no comment on the unusual activity. I picked it up when it was down $9.60 on the day and it seems to be headed back up. They report earnings August 3rd. Unless there's something going on that isn't being reported, this company will surely rise back up from these lows. I have a stop loss a dollar fifty below what I bought it at, but this has to be hysteria.Anyone have insight on why this solid stock suddenly crashed?It's up about $2 from where I bought it already. I have 1,000 shares. I placed a stop loss twenty cents above where I bought it so if it hasn't bottomed out yet, worst I'll likely do today is a slight profit.I'd like some clarity on the stock by end of the day, though, in case holding it overnight is dangerous.
:thumbup:Look for this stock to make 20% or more in the next two days from it's $50.37 close today. Company absolutely RIPPED through earnings estimates and was up almost $9 in after hours trading. It was hammered hard the last two weeks for no reason. They upped their earnings estimates for the year. Stock will trade at about $65 by next week, maybe sooner.
 
Incidentally, Perini Corp is one of the first companies that will benefit if there's a sudden call to replace a bunch of bridges. This is one of their specialties. They benefit from $8B in revenues promised from projects in the works. This is a strong, strong company. Risk is that the credit crunch curbs corporate real estate projects, but no sign of that yet. This company should trade in the 70s again this quarter.

 
I just bought a good sized position in a company called Perini Corp, PCR, which is a construction company that is literally #1 on my analyst's list. It's down something catastrophic like 25% in two days on absolutely nothing printed except for the downturn in housing. Thing is, this is a construction services company that does major products like industrial buildings, malls, corporate centers, casinos... No ostensible reason for this downturn besides hysteria. I see an insider sold a bit of stock, nothing major, on the 16th... Other than that, nothing.

Company has no comment on the unusual activity. I picked it up when it was down $9.60 on the day and it seems to be headed back up. They report earnings August 3rd. Unless there's something going on that isn't being reported, this company will surely rise back up from these lows. I have a stop loss a dollar fifty below what I bought it at, but this has to be hysteria.

Anyone have insight on why this solid stock suddenly crashed?

It's up about $2 from where I bought it already. I have 1,000 shares. I placed a stop loss twenty cents above where I bought it so if it hasn't bottomed out yet, worst I'll likely do today is a slight profit.

I'd like some clarity on the stock by end of the day, though, in case holding it overnight is dangerous.
:moneybag: Look for this stock to make 20% or more in the next two days from it's $50.37 close today. Company absolutely RIPPED through earnings estimates and was up almost $9 in after hours trading. It was hammered hard the last two weeks for no reason. They upped their earnings estimates for the year. Stock will trade at about $65 by next week, maybe sooner.
There's always a reason.
 
Sea Leopard of Death said:
Mr. Ham said:
I just bought a good sized position in a company called Perini Corp, PCR, which is a construction company that is literally #1 on my analyst's list. It's down something catastrophic like 25% in two days on absolutely nothing printed except for the downturn in housing. Thing is, this is a construction services company that does major products like industrial buildings, malls, corporate centers, casinos... No ostensible reason for this downturn besides hysteria. I see an insider sold a bit of stock, nothing major, on the 16th... Other than that, nothing.

Company has no comment on the unusual activity. I picked it up when it was down $9.60 on the day and it seems to be headed back up. They report earnings August 3rd. Unless there's something going on that isn't being reported, this company will surely rise back up from these lows. I have a stop loss a dollar fifty below what I bought it at, but this has to be hysteria.

Anyone have insight on why this solid stock suddenly crashed?

It's up about $2 from where I bought it already. I have 1,000 shares. I placed a stop loss twenty cents above where I bought it so if it hasn't bottomed out yet, worst I'll likely do today is a slight profit.

I'd like some clarity on the stock by end of the day, though, in case holding it overnight is dangerous.
:bowtie: Look for this stock to make 20% or more in the next two days from it's $50.37 close today. Company absolutely RIPPED through earnings estimates and was up almost $9 in after hours trading. It was hammered hard the last two weeks for no reason. They upped their earnings estimates for the year. Stock will trade at about $65 by next week, maybe sooner.
There's always a reason.
In this case, it was guilty be association. Opened up over 20%. :whoosh:
 
Apple however, continues to innovate and bring dramatically new things to the table at each iteration of the OS X.
Describe these new things. New to who, apple users?
I am interested in these new things as well. I run linux and linux only and have no plans of ever changing right now, but these "new things" might have me rethinking my stance......that is until Apple becomes really big and the hackers decide to start attacking them as well, then the "new things" become "patches to fix the broken things" as the company starts focusing on patching/preventative hacking rather than new technology ala MSFT.
 
It'll take a while, maybe another two years or so to get into the business world in any significant way, but Microsoft's star is waning while Apple's is waxing.
Given their respective market shares, isn't that sort of like saying the Raiders will be better this year?(Current iMac owner and long time Apple customer.)J
Well, consider Apple a team, and Steve Jobs the coach. They went into rebuilding mode quite a few years ago, and his new direction and coaching style has paid huge dividends, and they went from a team that nobody thought could do anything, to one that has made huge strides recently.Also, consider the ipod and the iphone WR's on his new team. He's solidified his line with great personnel around him. He has excellent standout star receivers in the iPod and iPhone, as well as a great TE in the laptop lines, but all this time and effort in improving the receiving core has meant the running game has been neglected.But the thing is, with the success of the iPod, iPhone, and the quality of the laptops, it's going to open up the running game for the business market. People focused on the great consumer products will be more willing to try out their business products, which are also of high quality. Pretty soon, Apple will be hitting on all cylinders and will contend for the title against the perpetual giant of Microsoft.Maybe Apple is like this years Dallas Cowboys. This could be the year all of the rebuilding pays off, with both offense and defense living up to their potential and going all the way to the superbowl :confused: .
I guess what Im saying is its not much to say theyre gaining on MS when theyre miles behind. Like saying the raiders will be better. Not many places to go but upJ
 
It'll take a while, maybe another two years or so to get into the business world in any significant way, but Microsoft's star is waning while Apple's is waxing.
Given their respective market shares, isn't that sort of like saying the Raiders will be better this year?(Current iMac owner and long time Apple customer.)J
Well, consider Apple a team, and Steve Jobs the coach. They went into rebuilding mode quite a few years ago, and his new direction and coaching style has paid huge dividends, and they went from a team that nobody thought could do anything, to one that has made huge strides recently.Also, consider the ipod and the iphone WR's on his new team. He's solidified his line with great personnel around him. He has excellent standout star receivers in the iPod and iPhone, as well as a great TE in the laptop lines, but all this time and effort in improving the receiving core has meant the running game has been neglected.But the thing is, with the success of the iPod, iPhone, and the quality of the laptops, it's going to open up the running game for the business market. People focused on the great consumer products will be more willing to try out their business products, which are also of high quality. Pretty soon, Apple will be hitting on all cylinders and will contend for the title against the perpetual giant of Microsoft.Maybe Apple is like this years Dallas Cowboys. This could be the year all of the rebuilding pays off, with both offense and defense living up to their potential and going all the way to the superbowl :confused: .
I guess what Im saying is its not much to say theyre gaining on MS when theyre miles behind. Like saying the raiders will be better. Not many places to go but upJ
That is one way to look at it. Another is to say that they are just killing it without making up much ground on MSFT on the operating system side. Which means if they did manage to pry away a couple points of market share it would be that much better for them.
 
Apple however, continues to innovate and bring dramatically new things to the table at each iteration of the OS X.
Describe these new things. New to who, apple users?
I am interested in these new things as well. I run linux and linux only and have no plans of ever changing right now, but these "new things" might have me rethinking my stance......that is until Apple becomes really big and the hackers decide to start attacking them as well, then the "new things" become "patches to fix the broken things" as the company starts focusing on patching/preventative hacking rather than new technology ala MSFT.
To reply to both of you, I'll probly do a poor job of describing these "new" things, but generally it'd be things that make the OS more appealing to new Apple converts.To the commish, I use linux at work and love it, but at home I run windows (currently) and have a lot of apps that can't be used with linux very easily. I heard recently that the Leopard OS X is UNIX 03 (I think) certified. I love the ability to use a terminal, like in Linux, with OS X. It'll also be completely 64-bit, as in, there will be no 32-bit versions of Leopard.

Also, by switching to intel chips, Apple has allowed users to install OS X and Windows on the same machine, and you can even run both of them at the same time, with an OS X dock on one side, and a windows XP tray on another. This is primarily done using Parallels, a 3rd party bit of software, but Boot camp offers the ability to run both OS's and is native to the OS and free. This is very appealing to me, as I don't hate windows, but would love to use both to their fullest ability.

The new Time Machine feature, introducing Spaces that have been around in Linux for quite a while (with a very nice and better interface in OS X), Dashboard widget creation, integrated remote desktop express with ichat, adoption of iCal standards in their calendar, they have this great "Quick Look" feature which will be great.

Here's a link listing a lot of Leopards new/improved features: Leopard's Feature List

Here's a link listing underlying technology behind Leopard, including Unix info: Leopard's Technology Info

Also, Apple releases a new OS X version about every year to year and a half. Windows has been working on Vista for over 7 years.

I guess you could also include iLife '08 in with the features that come with the newest gen OS, as they'll come with it if you're upgrading to a mac when leopard is released.iLife '08

 
Last edited by a moderator:
To the posters above, no, I don't think Apple is targeting the business market in the short term. But they make a better product -- and, as slow as the business market is to react, and as much as they already have invested in their current infrastructure, it would not surprise me to see Apple in the longer term start to try eating into that business market.

The cream eventually rises to the top.

 
Apple however, continues to innovate and bring dramatically new things to the table at each iteration of the OS X.
Describe these new things. New to who, apple users?
I am interested in these new things as well. I run linux and linux only and have no plans of ever changing right now, but these "new things" might have me rethinking my stance......that is until Apple becomes really big and the hackers decide to start attacking them as well, then the "new things" become "patches to fix the broken things" as the company starts focusing on patching/preventative hacking rather than new technology ala MSFT.
To reply to both of you, I'll probly do a poor job of describing these "new" things, but generally it'd be things that make the OS more appealing to new Apple converts.To the commish, I use linux at work and love it, but at home I run windows (currently) and have a lot of apps that can't be used with linux very easily. I heard recently that the Leopard OS X is UNIX 03 (I think) certified. I love the ability to use a terminal, like in Linux, with OS X. It'll also be completely 64-bit, as in, there will be no 32-bit versions of Leopard.

Also, by switching to intel chips, Apple has allowed users to install OS X and Windows on the same machine, and you can even run both of them at the same time, with an OS X dock on one side, and a windows XP tray on another. This is primarily done using Parallels, a 3rd party bit of software, but Boot camp offers the ability to run both OS's and is native to the OS and free. This is very appealing to me, as I don't hate windows, but would love to use both to their fullest ability.

The new Time Machine feature, introducing Spaces that have been around in Linux for quite a while (with a very nice and better interface in OS X), Dashboard widget creation, integrated remote desktop express with ichat, adoption of iCal standards in their calendar, they have this great "Quick Look" feature which will be great.

Here's a link listing a lot of Leopards new/improved features: Leopard's Feature List

Here's a link listing underlying technology behind Leopard, including Unix info: Leopard's Technology Info

Also, Apple releases a new OS X version about every year to year and a half. Windows has been working on Vista for over 7 years.

I guess you could also include iLife '08 in with the features that come with the newest gen OS, as they'll come with it if you're upgrading to a mac when leopard is released.iLife '08
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
To the bolded part I would say you have it completely backwards. Apple's OS Tiger was far superior to what XP could do with innovations using the OS. Vista from what I have seen on YouTube and other testimonials, to me, looks a lot like Tiger and in my mind is a copy of the "innovations" Tiger made into the computing world. Vista only looks like it is innovative and new because most Windows users never cross Apple's OS or care to even acknowledge its existence. Now, Apple's new OS has been shown by Jobs, and YouTube if you want to see, and the basic functions are even more innovative and user friendly. Most people will never come in contact with it though as they never cross paths with Apple. Apple is ahead of the game, they have to be, but I would never say they are playing catch up. They are playing their own game and perfecting that. If and when they feel the need to jump into the business world they will make small leaps and be successful at it. The pie is large and Apple is eating away at it nibble by nibble... not bite by bite.

 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
Yeah, I think they can co-exist. Both make great products, however the greatness of Microsofts product isn't accurately represented by their market share. They've been in the game for a long time, and have a legacy there that if both Apple and Microsoft were starting fresh, Apple would have a much larger chunk of the PC and business market, imo.For the purpose of this thread, that's what interests me. Apple continues to innovate, producing high quality products, and they're just now starting to make headway against Microsoft in the PC market, and will soon start to make headway into the business market as well. With their continued successes in the consumer electronics market, they'll start getting more recognition in other areas, increasing market share.But yeah, there's room enough for MS and APPLE, and the markets for all of the areas they're expanding into is huge. Cell phone market, notebook market, PC market, and eventually, Business market. Considering their products are just as good, and arguably better than the product that currently dominates most of those markets, it's easy to envision continual increases in market share in all those markets. Plus, you get the (i hate to say this word) synergistic effect of having popular and high quality products in multiple markets, and that can enhance the spread of products elsewhere.
 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
To the bolded part I would say you have it completely backwards. Apple's OS Tiger was far superior to what XP could do with innovations using the OS. Vista from what I have seen on YouTube and other testimonials, to me, looks a lot like Tiger and in my mind is a copy of the "innovations" Tiger made into the computing world. Vista only looks like it is innovative and new because most Windows users never cross Apple's OS or care to even acknowledge its existence. Now, Apple's new OS has been shown by Jobs, and YouTube if you want to see, and the basic functions are even more innovative and user friendly. Most people will never come in contact with it though as they never cross paths with Apple. Apple is ahead of the game, they have to be, but I would never say they are playing catch up. They are playing their own game and perfecting that. If and when they feel the need to jump into the business world they will make small leaps and be successful at it. The pie is large and Apple is eating away at it nibble by nibble... not bite by bite.
I am not comparing just msft and apple. Adonis said the new apple os is based partly on the linux environment, so that wouldn't be "new" to me as a general technology person since I deal in linux more than anything, but it would be "new" to an apple user. Same goes with 64 bit technology or the use of intel chips etc. All that technology has been around for a great while. And while Apple is catching up, the introduction of these features to their platform may be new, but the concepts and base technology aren't. That's what I am trying to understand. So I'll ask again....the innovation you speak of...is it just apple incorporating existing technology into their world, or are they creating new technology of their own?
 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
Yeah, I think they can co-exist. Both make great products, however the greatness of Microsofts product isn't accurately represented by their market share. They've been in the game for a long time, and have a legacy there that if both Apple and Microsoft were starting fresh, Apple would have a much larger chunk of the PC and business market, imo.For the purpose of this thread, that's what interests me. Apple continues to innovate, producing high quality products, and they're just now starting to make headway against Microsoft in the PC market, and will soon start to make headway into the business market as well. With their continued successes in the consumer electronics market, they'll start getting more recognition in other areas, increasing market share.

But yeah, there's room enough for MS and APPLE, and the markets for all of the areas they're expanding into is huge. Cell phone market, notebook market, PC market, and eventually, Business market. Considering their products are just as good, and arguably better than the product that currently dominates most of those markets, it's easy to envision continual increases in market share in all those markets. Plus, you get the (i hate to say this word) synergistic effect of having popular and high quality products in multiple markets, and that can enhance the spread of products elsewhere.
By this do you mean creating new technology or do you mean using existing technology in new ways??
 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
Yeah, I think they can co-exist. Both make great products, however the greatness of Microsofts product isn't accurately represented by their market share. They've been in the game for a long time, and have a legacy there that if both Apple and Microsoft were starting fresh, Apple would have a much larger chunk of the PC and business market, imo.For the purpose of this thread, that's what interests me. Apple continues to innovate, producing high quality products, and they're just now starting to make headway against Microsoft in the PC market, and will soon start to make headway into the business market as well. With their continued successes in the consumer electronics market, they'll start getting more recognition in other areas, increasing market share.

But yeah, there's room enough for MS and APPLE, and the markets for all of the areas they're expanding into is huge. Cell phone market, notebook market, PC market, and eventually, Business market. Considering their products are just as good, and arguably better than the product that currently dominates most of those markets, it's easy to envision continual increases in market share in all those markets. Plus, you get the (i hate to say this word) synergistic effect of having popular and high quality products in multiple markets, and that can enhance the spread of products elsewhere.
By this do you mean creating new technology or do you mean using existing technology in new ways??
Someone agrees with Adonis.CNN Money

 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
Yeah, I think they can co-exist. Both make great products, however the greatness of Microsofts product isn't accurately represented by their market share. They've been in the game for a long time, and have a legacy there that if both Apple and Microsoft were starting fresh, Apple would have a much larger chunk of the PC and business market, imo.For the purpose of this thread, that's what interests me. Apple continues to innovate, producing high quality products, and they're just now starting to make headway against Microsoft in the PC market, and will soon start to make headway into the business market as well. With their continued successes in the consumer electronics market, they'll start getting more recognition in other areas, increasing market share.

But yeah, there's room enough for MS and APPLE, and the markets for all of the areas they're expanding into is huge. Cell phone market, notebook market, PC market, and eventually, Business market. Considering their products are just as good, and arguably better than the product that currently dominates most of those markets, it's easy to envision continual increases in market share in all those markets. Plus, you get the (i hate to say this word) synergistic effect of having popular and high quality products in multiple markets, and that can enhance the spread of products elsewhere.
By this do you mean creating new technology or do you mean using existing technology in new ways??
Someone agrees with Adonis.CNN Money
This doesn't answer my question...could someone please clarify?? TIA. I am after a company who's creating new technology, like Oracle did in the 90s.
 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
To the bolded part I would say you have it completely backwards. Apple's OS Tiger was far superior to what XP could do with innovations using the OS. Vista from what I have seen on YouTube and other testimonials, to me, looks a lot like Tiger and in my mind is a copy of the "innovations" Tiger made into the computing world. Vista only looks like it is innovative and new because most Windows users never cross Apple's OS or care to even acknowledge its existence. Now, Apple's new OS has been shown by Jobs, and YouTube if you want to see, and the basic functions are even more innovative and user friendly. Most people will never come in contact with it though as they never cross paths with Apple. Apple is ahead of the game, they have to be, but I would never say they are playing catch up. They are playing their own game and perfecting that. If and when they feel the need to jump into the business world they will make small leaps and be successful at it. The pie is large and Apple is eating away at it nibble by nibble... not bite by bite.
I am not comparing just msft and apple. Adonis said the new apple os is based partly on the linux environment, so that wouldn't be "new" to me as a general technology person since I deal in linux more than anything, but it would be "new" to an apple user. Same goes with 64 bit technology or the use of intel chips etc. All that technology has been around for a great while. And while Apple is catching up, the introduction of these features to their platform may be new, but the concepts and base technology aren't. That's what I am trying to understand. So I'll ask again....the innovation you speak of...is it just apple incorporating existing technology into their world, or are they creating new technology of their own?
As far as the OS goes, the best description I can give is that they're making technology that has been available in general form for a while, accessible to any person. Not many people have the ability to run a linux machine, I'd guess fewer than 5% of all PC users. Not many people can understand the significance of 64-bit OS's, or have the ability to backup their machines, or many of the other things that are perhaps second nature to advanced technology users. What Apple does better than anyone else is to make this type of technology available to the average person. They pioneer user interfaces which are intuitive, stable, secure and simple. They simplify the entire user experience of using a PC through their production of their own OS, and their design of their own hardware. People say that Apple products "just work" and they do, precisely because Apple controls all aspects of using their computers, from the OS to the hardware. They've built their software on a secure base, and have apparently fully shifted to a UNIX based OS. They use advanced technology under their intuitive and pleasant OS and make it available to the average user.

So when I speak of innovation and Apple, I don't only mean a specific technological innovation, like developing radically new software or hardware. They're innovative in their ability to take what exists, package it into an accessible product that people enjoy using. The iMacs don't resemble any other PC in the industry. It's an innovative way of presenting a PC.

As far as real innovation, they developed a touch-screen for their iPhone that's better than anything out there, and they revolutionalized the portable mp3 industry by producing an elegant and easy to use product in the iPod.

Think of it this way. Linux is built on a Unix core, right? How many average users use Linux? How accessible is it? Now think of OS X Leopard. It's a UNIX OS. Compare it to Sun, or Linux, and see just how well Apple has utilized what exists, and packaged it into a form that can be used by anyone, without throwing away the underlying power of UNIX. It's still accessible, from a terminal and perhaps other ways. And think of how well the software and hardware work together, and how well any products that interface with their system works. Printers, wireless networks, external hard drives, etc. All available prior to Apple using them, but Apple uses them in ways that make them very simple to use.

And as far as Apple playing catch-up, I think that's certainly not the case. Apple isn't trying to catch Microsoft, implying that their product was somehow inferior, or lower-featured than the OS MS puts out. Their hardware wasn't inferior to other PC's or laptops either. They're blazing their own trail, not following behind MS or Dell or Gateway. Apple has taken a different direction, off the beaten trail, and only recently have people discovered that their trail is actually just as long, if not longer, and perhaps more scenic too, than the one Microsoft has made. More people are willing to walk down Apple's path now, and they're seeing what it has to offer.

 
So it's fair to say the "new features" are new to Apple users and not necessarily to the tech world in general? That's more of what I was wondering about. Apple has the luxury of flying under the hacker radar for now. The true test of their character will be if/when they are targeted by the hackers. That was a HUGE stumbling block for MSFT and a big reason I believe linux is becoming so popular. Linux presents ZERO challenge to hackers given it's origins so it's left alone. I think there is a market share to be held by both apple and msft, personally. They can coexist and still thrive in their respective niches. The only question is, which one will be greedy enough to push the envelope and fall flat on their faces?
To the bolded part I would say you have it completely backwards. Apple's OS Tiger was far superior to what XP could do with innovations using the OS. Vista from what I have seen on YouTube and other testimonials, to me, looks a lot like Tiger and in my mind is a copy of the "innovations" Tiger made into the computing world. Vista only looks like it is innovative and new because most Windows users never cross Apple's OS or care to even acknowledge its existence. Now, Apple's new OS has been shown by Jobs, and YouTube if you want to see, and the basic functions are even more innovative and user friendly. Most people will never come in contact with it though as they never cross paths with Apple. Apple is ahead of the game, they have to be, but I would never say they are playing catch up. They are playing their own game and perfecting that. If and when they feel the need to jump into the business world they will make small leaps and be successful at it. The pie is large and Apple is eating away at it nibble by nibble... not bite by bite.
I am not comparing just msft and apple. Adonis said the new apple os is based partly on the linux environment, so that wouldn't be "new" to me as a general technology person since I deal in linux more than anything, but it would be "new" to an apple user. Same goes with 64 bit technology or the use of intel chips etc. All that technology has been around for a great while. And while Apple is catching up, the introduction of these features to their platform may be new, but the concepts and base technology aren't. That's what I am trying to understand. So I'll ask again....the innovation you speak of...is it just apple incorporating existing technology into their world, or are they creating new technology of their own?
As far as the OS goes, the best description I can give is that they're making technology that has been available in general form for a while, accessible to any person. Not many people have the ability to run a linux machine, I'd guess fewer than 5% of all PC users. Not many people can understand the significance of 64-bit OS's, or have the ability to backup their machines, or many of the other things that are perhaps second nature to advanced technology users. What Apple does better than anyone else is to make this type of technology available to the average person. They pioneer user interfaces which are intuitive, stable, secure and simple. They simplify the entire user experience of using a PC through their production of their own OS, and their design of their own hardware. People say that Apple products "just work" and they do, precisely because Apple controls all aspects of using their computers, from the OS to the hardware. They've built their software on a secure base, and have apparently fully shifted to a UNIX based OS. They use advanced technology under their intuitive and pleasant OS and make it available to the average user.

So when I speak of innovation and Apple, I don't only mean a specific technological innovation, like developing radically new software or hardware. They're innovative in their ability to take what exists, package it into an accessible product that people enjoy using. The iMacs don't resemble any other PC in the industry. It's an innovative way of presenting a PC.

As far as real innovation, they developed a touch-screen for their iPhone that's better than anything out there, and they revolutionalized the portable mp3 industry by producing an elegant and easy to use product in the iPod.

Think of it this way. Linux is built on a Unix core, right? How many average users use Linux? How accessible is it? Now think of OS X Leopard. It's a UNIX OS. Compare it to Sun, or Linux, and see just how well Apple has utilized what exists, and packaged it into a form that can be used by anyone, without throwing away the underlying power of UNIX. It's still accessible, from a terminal and perhaps other ways. And think of how well the software and hardware work together, and how well any products that interface with their system works. Printers, wireless networks, external hard drives, etc. All available prior to Apple using them, but Apple uses them in ways that make them very simple to use.

And as far as Apple playing catch-up, I think that's certainly not the case. Apple isn't trying to catch Microsoft, implying that their product was somehow inferior, or lower-featured than the OS MS puts out. Their hardware wasn't inferior to other PC's or laptops either. They're blazing their own trail, not following behind MS or Dell or Gateway. Apple has taken a different direction, off the beaten trail, and only recently have people discovered that their trail is actually just as long, if not longer, and perhaps more scenic too, than the one Microsoft has made. More people are willing to walk down Apple's path now, and they're seeing what it has to offer.
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought to myself about Under Armour a few weeks ago. I think they make quality products and I like their marketing. With football season starting, company should be solid for the near futture. Stock has gone up 20 points since the beginning of July.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:unsure: :rolleyes: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.

 
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:eek: :cool: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.
:lmao: Hell, Microsoft biggest technological and commercial achievement, windows, was actually invented by someone else.

 
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:lol: :hot: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.
I have no idea what this means.
 
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:lol: :hot: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.
I have no idea what this means.
Microsoft's latest technological marvel was a table with a computer built into it, the tabletop being a touchscreen. Huge appeal here.
 
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:bag: :shrug: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.
I have no idea what this means.
Microsoft's latest technological marvel was a table with a computer built into it, the tabletop being a touchscreen. Huge appeal here.
Ok. Just to clarifiy, I am talking about technology and new applications of it. I am not talking about gadgets etc. I dislike MSFT as much as the next guy, but lets face it...if we discount their influence and things they have brought to the forefront, the technology world looks very different right now. It's easy to argue that we'd still be in the VAX/VMS level of technology. Their impact on networking has been unreal whether people want to believe it or not. Those fronts are what I was talking about in my initial post. PCs, pdas, ipods, notebooks are a small part of the technology market.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:lmao: :blackdot: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.
I have no idea what this means.
Microsoft's latest technological marvel was a table with a computer built into it, the tabletop being a touchscreen. Huge appeal here.
Ok. Just to clarifiy, I am talking about technology and new applications of it. I am not talking about gadgets etc. I dislike MSFT as much as the next guy, but lets face it...if we discount their influence and things they have brought to the forefront, the technology world looks very different right now. It's easy to argue that we'd still be in the VAX/VMS level of technology. Their impact on networking has been unreal whether people want to believe it or not. Those fronts are what I was talking about in my initial post. PCs, pdas, ipods, notebooks are a small part of the technology market.
You're confusing commercialization/business savvy with technological innovation. They aren't, in my view, one and the same.Bill Gates has done a tremendous job running a business, no question. He's a brilliant guy with good savvy and foresight. That said, his company's biggest "innovations" and successes, time and time again, were actually the innovations of others. Windows was more or less taken from Xerox and implemented differently. Gates was just better bringing it to market. Microsoft has taken browser advancements from others and improved IE with them. At the end of the day, I can't think of a huge technological advancement that they've contributed. It's a great company, no doubt. A very well run business. Ruthless. Impossible to compete with. But they aren't innovators.

The folks at Apple? Completely different story. They think and work outside the box. The iPod was a great innovation and superior product. Their computers and operating systems are a joy to use. So many little thoughtful design tweaks that make a difference. You just don't see that in Windows. The iPhone is awesome. Etc.

 
Thanks, that's what I was looking for. FWIW, I don't think Apple is playing catchup to MSFT either....I think they have two different directions and target groups personally, so to compare them as if they have the same goals is foolish. I could use the term "catching up" with MSFT as well, when speaking of the imagining functionality etc. I wasn't comparing the two companies, I was trying to understand where Apple was in their comprehension of technology and how to apply it to the general public. I think MSFT is light years ahead in the vision of technology and where it's going, but their progress is severely limited by their ability to produce things in a timely fashion. Some of the stuff they have in the pipeline is truely amazing, but given their business model, I doubt they will be first to market with any of it despite them being the first to start exploring it.
:yes: :thumbup: Yeah, they really nailed that vision of a $10,000 table.
I have no idea what this means.
Microsoft's latest technological marvel was a table with a computer built into it, the tabletop being a touchscreen. Huge appeal here.
Ok. Just to clarifiy, I am talking about technology and new applications of it. I am not talking about gadgets etc. I dislike MSFT as much as the next guy, but lets face it...if we discount their influence and things they have brought to the forefront, the technology world looks very different right now. It's easy to argue that we'd still be in the VAX/VMS level of technology. Their impact on networking has been unreal whether people want to believe it or not. Those fronts are what I was talking about in my initial post. PCs, pdas, ipods, notebooks are a small part of the technology market.
You're confusing commercialization/business savvy with technological innovation. They aren't, in my view, one and the same.Bill Gates has done a tremendous job running a business, no question. He's a brilliant guy with good savvy and foresight. That said, his company's biggest "innovations" and successes, time and time again, were actually the innovations of others. Windows was more or less taken from Xerox and implemented differently. Gates was just better bringing it to market. Microsoft has taken browser advancements from others and improved IE with them. At the end of the day, I can't think of a huge technological advancement that they've contributed. It's a great company, no doubt. A very well run business. Ruthless. Impossible to compete with. But they aren't innovators.

The folks at Apple? Completely different story. They think and work outside the box. The iPod was a great innovation and superior product. Their computers and operating systems are a joy to use. So many little thoughtful design tweaks that make a difference. You just don't see that in Windows. The iPhone is awesome. Etc.
I agree that MSFT is no longer the innovators they once were. Innovation goes bye bye when you have to focus on bug fixes. Today's MSFT is an innovation shell of itself 15 years ago. I see your examples for Apple being innovators to be very similar to the ones you dismiss for MSFT though. They didn't invent the mp3 player, they simply made it better. Their computer inner workings are bits and pieces of existing technology that hadn't been presented to the general user in the past, but they didn't invent linux. So I see the comparisons very similar. With that said, our definitions of innovation are different. I came in here looking for a company that will completely turn the market on it's ear like Oracle did to the RDBMS world in the 90s. They were doing things with their dbms that had never been done before, essentially creating new technology. Today, their accomplishments then are STILL the standard to which all other dbms platforms measure themselves. I don't get that sense when I read/talk about MSFT or Apple. I used to with MSFT, but not anymore. Let's face it...you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of technology today that MSFT didn't have it's hands in when that technology came out in it's inception. I am not suggesting that they drove every single innovation of the time, but they were major players in most of the technology growth in this world in one form or another. Without them, we'd be playing catchup with several asian countries right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Analyst Rating Ranking of NASDAQ-100 Stocks

I was checking on SIAL (Sigma Aldrich, mentioned earlier in this thread) progress during this year and it's been quite good actually. While searching, I ran across this article, that might be interesting to some. I copied the ones that were Buy recommendation or above.

Rank Ticker Company Name Avg. Rating Avg. Rating Value # of Ratings

1 RYAAY Ryanair Holdings Strong Buy 1.25 4

2 XRAY DENTSPLY Int'l Buy 1.67 9

3 LINTA Liberty Media Buy 1.70 10

4 INFY Infosys Technologies Buy 1.75 16

5 LBTYA Liberty Global Buy 1.75 8

6 ISRG Intuitive Surgical Buy 1.78 9

7 MSFT Microsoft Buy 1.78 37

8 GENZ Genzyme Buy 1.79 19

9 CTSH Cognizant Tech Solutions Buy 1.80 20

10 GOOG Google Buy 1.82 39

11 SBUX Starbucks Buy 1.85 20

12 CTXS Citrix Systems Buy 1.88 26

13 SPLS Staples Buy 1.89 18

14 GILD Gilead Sciences Buy 1.90 31

15 NIHD NII Holdings Buy 1.93 14

16 CMCSA Comcast Buy 1.93 28

17 AAPL Apple Buy 1.93 29

18 INTC Intel Corporation Buy 1.94 36

19 FISV Fiserv Buy 1.94 18

20 CELG Celgene Buy 1.95 21

21 MRVL Marvell Technology Group Buy 1.95 22

22 ESRX Express Scripts Buy 1.96 23

23 ADBE Adobe Systems Buy 1.97 29

24 QCOM QUALCOMM Buy 1.97 31

25 MICC Millicom Int'l Cellular Buy 2.00 8

26 CDNS Cadence Design Systems Buy 2.00 11

27 INTU Intuit Buy 2.00 14

28 ATVI Activision Buy 2.03 29

29 ORCL Oracle Buy 2.05 37

30 ERIC LM Ericsson Telephone Buy 2.06 17

31 RIMM Research in Motion Buy 2.06 33

32 MNST Monster Worldwide Buy 2.09 22

33 ERTS Electronic Arts Buy 2.10 30

34 VMED Virgin Media Buy 2.11 9

35 FLEX Flextronics Int'l Buy 2.13 24

36 CHRW C.H. Robinson Worldwide Buy 2.13 16

37 PAYX Paychex Buy 2.14 21

38 VRTX Vertex Pharmaceuticals Buy 2.14 21

39 MXIM Maxim Integrated Products Buy 2.15 26

40 SIRI Sirius Satellite Radio Buy 2.16 25

41 XMSR XM Satellite Radio Buy 2.16 25

42 ADSK Autodesk Buy 2.18 22

43 CSCO Cisco Systems Buy 2.18 33

44 UAUA UAL Buy 2.18 11

45 NVDA NVIDIA Buy 2.19 27

46 MCHP Microchip Technology Buy 2.20 20

47 AMAT Applied Materials Buy 2.23 31

48 NTAP Network Appliance Buy 2.23 22

49 EXPD Expeditors Int'l Buy 2.23 13

50 TEVA Teva Pharmaceutical Inds. Buy 2.25 24

51 JNPR Juniper Networks Buy 2.25 28

52 PDCO Patterson Companies Buy 2.27 11

53 XLNX Xilinx Buy 2.28 25

54 BRCM Broadcom Buy 2.28 25

55 SNDK SanDisk Buy 2.30 23

56 CEPH Cephalon Buy 2.31 26

57 PETM PETsMART Buy 2.32 19

58 EBAY eBay Inc. Buy 2.32 31

59 LOGI Logitech Int'l S.A. Buy 2.33 9

60 AKAM Akamai Technologies Buy 2.33 21

61 SIAL Sigma-Aldrich Buy 2.33 9

62 VRSN VeriSign Buy 2.36 22

63 LVLT Level 3 Communications Buy 2.39 18

64 LAMR Lamar Advertising Buy 2.43 21

65 JOYG Joy Global Buy 2.44 9

66 KLAC KLA-Tencor Buy 2.44 27

67 AMLN Amylin Pharmaceuticals Buy 2.45 20

68 YHOO Yahoo! Inc. Buy 2.46 39

69 EXPE Expedia Buy
 
Mr. Ham said:
I just bought a good sized position in a company called Perini Corp, PCR, which is a construction company that is literally #1 on my analyst's list. It's down something catastrophic like 25% in two days on absolutely nothing printed except for the downturn in housing. Thing is, this is a construction services company that does major products like industrial buildings, malls, corporate centers, casinos... No ostensible reason for this downturn besides hysteria. I see an insider sold a bit of stock, nothing major, on the 16th... Other than that, nothing.Company has no comment on the unusual activity. I picked it up when it was down $9.60 on the day and it seems to be headed back up. They report earnings August 3rd. Unless there's something going on that isn't being reported, this company will surely rise back up from these lows. I have a stop loss a dollar fifty below what I bought it at, but this has to be hysteria.Anyone have insight on why this solid stock suddenly crashed?It's up about $2 from where I bought it already. I have 1,000 shares. I placed a stop loss twenty cents above where I bought it so if it hasn't bottomed out yet, worst I'll likely do today is a slight profit.I'd like some clarity on the stock by end of the day, though, in case holding it overnight is dangerous.
:unsure:Look for this stock to make 20% or more in the next two days from it's $50.37 close today. Company absolutely RIPPED through earnings estimates and was up almost $9 in after hours trading. It was hammered hard the last two weeks for no reason. They upped their earnings estimates for the year. Stock will trade at about $65 by next week, maybe sooner.
Had a rough intraday decline from it's open. Still, company seems to have some very solid fundamentals and is worth researching some more. Thanks for the tip!
 
The Commish said:
I agree that MSFT is no longer the innovators they once were. Innovation goes bye bye when you have to focus on bug fixes. Today's MSFT is an innovation shell of itself 15 years ago. I see your examples for Apple being innovators to be very similar to the ones you dismiss for MSFT though. They didn't invent the mp3 player, they simply made it better. Their computer inner workings are bits and pieces of existing technology that hadn't been presented to the general user in the past, but they didn't invent linux. So I see the comparisons very similar. With that said, our definitions of innovation are different. I came in here looking for a company that will completely turn the market on it's ear like Oracle did to the RDBMS world in the 90s. They were doing things with their dbms that had never been done before, essentially creating new technology. Today, their accomplishments then are STILL the standard to which all other dbms platforms measure themselves. I don't get that sense when I read/talk about MSFT or Apple. I used to with MSFT, but not anymore. Let's face it...you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of technology today that MSFT didn't have it's hands in when that technology came out in it's inception. I am not suggesting that they drove every single innovation of the time, but they were major players in most of the technology growth in this world in one form or another. Without them, we'd be playing catchup with several asian countries right now.
The argument could be made that Microsoft is actually holding technology development back through their monopoly and strong-arm business practices. Their M.O. for the past twenty years has been to wait for other companies to develop new ideas, then choke the competitor out of the marketplace by integrating their own sub-standard versions into Windows in it's place.You say they have all these great ideas first but can't release them in time. I say they wait for someone else to innovate, then replicate.

 
Buckna said:
I just bought a good sized position in a company called Perini Corp, PCR, which is a construction company that is literally #1 on my analyst's list. It's down something catastrophic like 25% in two days on absolutely nothing printed except for the downturn in housing. Thing is, this is a construction services company that does major products like industrial buildings, malls, corporate centers, casinos... No ostensible reason for this downturn besides hysteria. I see an insider sold a bit of stock, nothing major, on the 16th... Other than that, nothing.Company has no comment on the unusual activity. I picked it up when it was down $9.60 on the day and it seems to be headed back up. They report earnings August 3rd. Unless there's something going on that isn't being reported, this company will surely rise back up from these lows. I have a stop loss a dollar fifty below what I bought it at, but this has to be hysteria.Anyone have insight on why this solid stock suddenly crashed?It's up about $2 from where I bought it already. I have 1,000 shares. I placed a stop loss twenty cents above where I bought it so if it hasn't bottomed out yet, worst I'll likely do today is a slight profit.I'd like some clarity on the stock by end of the day, though, in case holding it overnight is dangerous.
:confused: Look for this stock to make 20% or more in the next two days from it's $50.37 close today. Company absolutely RIPPED through earnings estimates and was up almost $9 in after hours trading. It was hammered hard the last two weeks for no reason. They upped their earnings estimates for the year. Stock will trade at about $65 by next week, maybe sooner.
Had a rough intraday decline from it's open. Still, company seems to have some very solid fundamentals and is worth researching some more. Thanks for the tip!
Wow. Started up 20% up and actually dipped to the negative for a minute or two. Ended up about 1.5% up. Despite the fact that the company reported an an excellent outlook and there is reason to believe in the company, I looked at the charts for all construction services companies across the board and saw a steep decline in most. It's a sector thing. I'm pretty sure that a lot of these big funds are moving money out of materials and construction into other sectors. Construction was a tremendous performer for the last three years and is trading at pretty high PEs. Perini was trading at a PE in the mind 30s two weeks ago and is now about 20. I think the PE of this entire sector is finding its corrected value. I held onto my position today, but saw $10,000 in gains evaporate between the opening and closing bell. Sucked. It makes me nervous because despite the glowing outlook for the next few quarters, I think the question is whether sales will continue at a pace that allows for the PEs these stocks have been acustomed to trading at. Without the support of the capitalization from funds, it doesn't look like investors are willing to bet on construction at all, even corporate and gaming construction, which is Perini's wheelhouse.It does look like the sector is starting to creep back up after a three week route, but today's volatility in light of a stellar earnings report was more than a little disheartening. I'm hoping the stock will slowing creep back up into the 60s, but I'll take a loss and stop out if it hits $46. I'm still shuked as to why the stock had such a precipitous decline intraday. One theory I have is that short sellars in some hedge funds may have bet big on the stock's decline and when it exploded they worked to knock it back down. There doesn't seem to be any other reasonable explanation as far as data released today that explains the buttom dropping out like that. I'm hoping it finds its footing in the next few days and gradually eases back up toward 60, but I wonder how much instititutional support it'll get. After today, if it hits that again at all, I'm out. Too much uncertainty despite this being an excellent company that's doing well and that may benefit from any decisions to upgrade our national infrastructure.Another reason it may be getting hit is because it's a small cap company that is more prone to the effects of tightening credit. Tougher credit equals less big projects... Although this company still expects over $8B to roll in from existing ones.
 
Last edited:
The Commish said:
I agree that MSFT is no longer the innovators they once were. Innovation goes bye bye when you have to focus on bug fixes. Today's MSFT is an innovation shell of itself 15 years ago. I see your examples for Apple being innovators to be very similar to the ones you dismiss for MSFT though. They didn't invent the mp3 player, they simply made it better. Their computer inner workings are bits and pieces of existing technology that hadn't been presented to the general user in the past, but they didn't invent linux. So I see the comparisons very similar. With that said, our definitions of innovation are different. I came in here looking for a company that will completely turn the market on it's ear like Oracle did to the RDBMS world in the 90s. They were doing things with their dbms that had never been done before, essentially creating new technology. Today, their accomplishments then are STILL the standard to which all other dbms platforms measure themselves. I don't get that sense when I read/talk about MSFT or Apple. I used to with MSFT, but not anymore. Let's face it...you'd be hard pressed to find a piece of technology today that MSFT didn't have it's hands in when that technology came out in it's inception. I am not suggesting that they drove every single innovation of the time, but they were major players in most of the technology growth in this world in one form or another. Without them, we'd be playing catchup with several asian countries right now.
The argument could be made that Microsoft is actually holding technology development back through their monopoly and strong-arm business practices. Their M.O. for the past twenty years has been to wait for other companies to develop new ideas, then choke the competitor out of the marketplace by integrating their own sub-standard versions into Windows in it's place.You say they have all these great ideas first but can't release them in time. I say they wait for someone else to innovate, then replicate.
Agreed. I am not arguing for MSFT in any way here. My original point is long lost at this point. I am simply wanting to know peoples' opinions on who that new upstart company is that is going to revolutionize technology and push the limits of what we have today. Great examples are Oracle in the rdbms arena and Motorola in the microchip arena. These companies took new ideas and raised their arenas to new levels. I am looking for a company like that. Someone creating new technology not just someone using existing technology in a different way. Hope that's a bit clearer.
 
So when I speak of innovation and Apple, I don't only mean a specific technological innovation, like developing radically new software or hardware. They're innovative in their ability to take what exists, package it into an accessible product that people enjoy using. The iMacs don't resemble any other PC in the industry. It's an innovative way of presenting a PC.
This seems to be the standard line for apple. But is it really true? I wonder how much innovation they've actually stifled keeping everything so rigidly protected. It seems to me that open source is the ultimate way to encourage innovation.Obviously, Apple has uber smart and talented people but is that super protectionist mentality really that innovative?I guess one can point to the scoreboard and say things like the iPhone and their other products are super innovative. It just seems to go against that "openness encourages innovation" angle. I dunno.J
 
So when I speak of innovation and Apple, I don't only mean a specific technological innovation, like developing radically new software or hardware. They're innovative in their ability to take what exists, package it into an accessible product that people enjoy using. The iMacs don't resemble any other PC in the industry. It's an innovative way of presenting a PC.
This seems to be the standard line for apple. But is it really true? I wonder how much innovation they've actually stifled keeping everything so rigidly protected. It seems to me that open source is the ultimate way to encourage innovation.Obviously, Apple has uber smart and talented people but is that super protectionist mentality really that innovative?I guess one can point to the scoreboard and say things like the iPhone and their other products are super innovative. It just seems to go against that "openness encourages innovation" angle. I dunno.J
Innovation and useability don't always go hand-in-hand. Unless it has an Apple logo on it.
 
So when I speak of innovation and Apple, I don't only mean a specific technological innovation, like developing radically new software or hardware. They're innovative in their ability to take what exists, package it into an accessible product that people enjoy using. The iMacs don't resemble any other PC in the industry. It's an innovative way of presenting a PC.
This seems to be the standard line for apple. But is it really true? I wonder how much innovation they've actually stifled keeping everything so rigidly protected. It seems to me that open source is the ultimate way to encourage innovation.Obviously, Apple has uber smart and talented people but is that super protectionist mentality really that innovative?

I guess one can point to the scoreboard and say things like the iPhone and their other products are super innovative. It just seems to go against that "openness encourages innovation" angle. I dunno.

J
It seems to me that Apple is encouraging open source. Leopard is Unix 03 certified, which means it conforms to standard Unix specifications, and that code written for those specifications can be run on Macs, or any other Unix certified machines, and likely linux machines as well.Their OS X is based on an open-source BSD platform based on Unix. They've opened their systems up to support Windows software via boot camp and Parallels. They support cross-platform programs that can run on Unix and Linux machines. They subscribe to CalDev standards for their calendars. iChat is based on an open source program called Jabber XMPP.

Apple does patent a lot of its technology, but that's primarily in the hardware realm where open-source doesn't particularly apply. They write software to sell their hardware, and they write excellent software. But the bulk of their profits comes from marking up the hardware, so, other people offering good software only helps their bottom line.

Microsoft, on the other hand, and other software-based companies, are hurt when other implementations of software come out and do what they've been doing. Microsoft has Office apps for Mac's, but Apple doesn't release iWork for PC's. Wonder why that is :shrug: .

Anyways, Apple does a good job at promoting standards and has based a lot of its software on open-source code. The more cool software out there that runs well on its system, the more appealing a mac becomes, and the more money apple makes.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top