AAPL - Apple Inc.

[Guest valueInv]

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

[Guest valueInv]

Instead of telling me to read the book again, why don't you actually point out the specific part of the book that says "Ive came up with the iPad", and then we'll take it from there.

Typically, Jobs decided that a device sucked and he wanted to build a better one. Then he asked his team to come up with better ways to build one. It's I'd mostly the teams ideas that shaped the device. For example, the touch interface that defined the interface was from Jony Ives team, the click wheel for the iPod was from Phil Schiller, etc.

[hardincap]

Instead of telling me to read the book again, why don't you actually point out the specific part of the book that says "Ive came up with the iPad", and then we'll take it from there.

Typically, Jobs decided that a device sucked and he wanted to build a better one. Then he asked his team to come up with better ways to build one. It's I'd mostly the teams ideas that shaped the device. For example, the touch interface that defined the interface was from Jony Ives team, the click wheel for the iPod was from Phil Schiller, etc.

 

do you want me to manage your portfolio too?

[hardincap]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

[Parsad]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

 

Engineers make some of the worst investors and business people, because they look at everything through the eyes of an engineer.  Cheers!

[hardincap]

Instead of telling me to read the book again, why don't you actually point out the specific part of the book that says "Ive came up with the iPad", and then we'll take it from there.

Typically, Jobs decided that a device sucked and he wanted to build a better one. Then he asked his team to come up with better ways to build one. It's I'd mostly the teams ideas that shaped the device. For example, the touch interface that defined the interface was from Jony Ives team, the click wheel for the iPod was from Phil Schiller, etc.

 

id say the touch interface defined the whole product. hence i give him credit for inventing the products. of course jobs played an important role, but without ive apple would not have the ipad/iphone

[hardincap]

thats the craziest thing ive heard. engineers have fluency in the most reliable reality principles.. similar to physics and other hard sciences. hence charlie munger/li lu's attraction to physics.

 

 

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

 

Engineers make some of the worst investors and business people, because they look at everything through the eyes of an engineer.  Cheers!

[Guest valueInv]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

 

Engineers make some of the worst investors and business people, because they look at everything through the eyes of an engineer.  Cheers!

 

;D ;D ;D. Funny, Google is run by engineers, so is FB and many if not most tech companies.

 

Also, what does Munger say about engineering mental models?

 

[hardincap]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

 

Engineers make some of the worst investors and business people, because they look at everything through the eyes of an engineer.  Cheers!

 

;D ;D ;D. Funny, Google is run by engineers, so is FB and many if not most tech companies.

 

Also, what does Munger say about engineering mental models?

 

i would laugh, if i didnt think it was a really sad comment

[Palantir]

Instead of telling me to read the book again, why don't you actually point out the specific part of the book that says "Ive came up with the iPad", and then we'll take it from there.

Typically, Jobs decided that a device sucked and he wanted to build a better one. Then he asked his team to come up with better ways to build one. It's I'd mostly the teams ideas that shaped the device. For example, the touch interface that defined the interface was from Jony Ives team, the click wheel for the iPod was from Phil Schiller, etc.

 

You're right, and don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that a lot of very talented people were involved in all of these products. Ultimately however, Jobs had the final decision in determining whether the product was  "go" or "needs improvement". After spending a lot of time developing the iPhone, Jobs could tell Ive to start over again because it "didn't feel right", or that the iPad be redone because it just wasn't something one could "scoop off the table and start using".

 

Even if you have very talented people working for you, in many cases they have very different ideas about what to do, and it was Jobs' role to ferret out the right decision to make regarding a product, which gave a lot of power to one man's decisions. What you have to keep in mind is that Jobs was essentially a "generalist" who was heading up a team of "specialists", and had the ability to grasp a range of different ideas from design to technology to retail to supply chains. We will now have a "specialist" take the "generalist" mantle. Does Tim Cook have the design chops to tell Ive whether something is "perfect" or whether the edges need more rounding :) ? Will he have the marketing nous to tell Schiller if his ads are terrible? Does he have the grasp of the consumer to come up with another great product? I think it's possible, but I have no idea.

 

I think him firing Forstall was a great decision as it shows that he was building more harmony within his team.

 

 

[Palantir]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background.

 

 

Neither did Steve Jobs....I hope he doesn't have an opinion on the iPad.

[Parsad]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

 

Engineers make some of the worst investors and business people, because they look at everything through the eyes of an engineer.  Cheers!

 

;D ;D ;D. Funny, Google is run by engineers, so is FB and many if not most tech companies.

 

Also, what does Munger say about engineering mental models?

 

thats the craziest thing ive heard. engineers have fluency in the most reliable reality principles.. similar to physics and other hard sciences. hence charlie munger/li lu's attraction to physics.

 

 

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background. valueinv and i both do

 

 

Ive of course, designed the product, but from what I remember, I don't believe the book suggests that it was his idea. But I could be wrong. I remember Jobs mentioning he was at a barbecue in 2003, and a MS engineer was bragging about a tablet with a stylus, which infuriated Jobs.

 

The Apple stores for example, were primarily Ron Johnson's idea. Putting iTunes on other computers was someone else's idea as well. So Jobs certainly would have made major mistakes without his team.

 

Now you might be right in a sense, Ive could take on that role.

 

i suggest reading the book again.

 

Reading the book will make no difference.  In most respects, the Surface is a good product that is pretty comparable to the iPad.  Yet, how was the execution at Microsoft in marketing this thing and perfecting it under Ballmer?  So far, it's been mediocre. 

 

Jobs greatest asset was his ability to perfect a product (his innovation or not), and then get people to pay 2 times more than it was worth relative to other products.  That cannot be taught.  Cook is not going to absorb that through his gills because he spent time around Jobs.  It's like saying that I'll be a great physicist by working with Stephen Hawkings! 

 

Jobs second greatest asset was his ability to get the most out of the talent around him.  He was a slave-driver that forced employees to get things right the first time...not on the second or third attempt.  And ironically, they loved him even more for it while they hated how hard they had to work.

 

That combination of drive, vision, competitiveness, marketing savvy, and understanding of technology in our daily lives is irreplaceable.  Apple will be a good company without Jobs, but it will not be a great company.  It's long-term existence will be similar to other technology companies.  Cheers!

 

I would refer you to something called company DNA.

 

Apple does not need to be as good as under Jobs to maintain its lead. It just needs to be better than its competitors.

 

Btw, you think Cook is not a task master?

 

Engineers make some of the worst investors and business people, because they look at everything through the eyes of an engineer.  Cheers!

 

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers! 

[Parsad]

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background.

 

 

Neither did Steve Jobs....I hope he doesn't have an opinion on the iPad.

 

LOL!  Cheers!

[hardincap]

So you think engineering and common sense don't mix. What a preposterous thing to say. Why don't you say that to Henry singleton

[hardincap]

Actually he built together frequency counters at 13. Melissa Mayer says he is extremely technical. So do friends I have who have worked with him personallu

 

do you really think the biggest difference between the ipad and the surface is marketing? let me guess, you have no engineering background.

 

 

Neither did Steve Jobs....I hope he doesn't have an opinion on the iPad.

 

LOL!  Cheers!

[Guest valueInv]

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers!

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

Bill Gates was an engineer also.

Ajit Jain, Jack Welch, Prem Watsa,  etc, etc, etc

 

I can tell you one thing, engineers have a better grasp of facts, LOL.

[Parsad]

So you think engineering and common sense don't mix. What a preposterous thing to say. Why don't you say that to Henry singleton

 

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers!

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

Bill Gates was an engineer also.

Ajit Jain, Jack Welch, Prem Watsa,  etc, etc, etc

 

I can tell you one thing, engineers have a better grasp of facts, LOL.

 

Again, did I say all engineers?  I said engineers make some of the worst businesspeople and investors because they are overly analytical.  I never said all engineers makes terrible businesspeople or investors. 

 

For engineers, I would have presumed you both would have read my sentence in more detail and understood that.  Apparently, you two fall into the exceptional category as well, and aren't that analytical after all.  Cheers!

[hardincap]

+1

 

facts and logical reasoning.

 

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers!

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

Bill Gates was an engineer also.

Ajit Jain, Jack Welch, Prem Watsa,  etc, etc, etc

 

I can tell you one thing, engineers have a better grasp of facts, LOL.

[Parsad]

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

 

 

Knock yourself out.  Cheers!

 

http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html

 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/01/technology/google_buffett/

 

 

[hardincap]

then you've made a pointless statement, because every profession has people who make bad investors/businessman for one reason or another. i woudl argue that engineers and scientists on the whole make much better investors/businessman than any other profession.

 

So you think engineering and common sense don't mix. What a preposterous thing to say. Why don't you say that to Henry singleton

 

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers!

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

Bill Gates was an engineer also.

Ajit Jain, Jack Welch, Prem Watsa,  etc, etc, etc

 

I can tell you one thing, engineers have a better grasp of facts, LOL.

 

Again, did I say all engineers?  I said engineers make some of the worst businesspeople and investors because they are overly analytical.  I never said all engineers makes terrible businesspeople or investors. 

 

For engineers, I would have presumed you both would have read my sentence in more detail and understood that.  Apparently, you two fall into the exceptional category as well, and aren't that analytical after all.  Cheers!

[hyten1]

all this talk about engineers etc etc

 

for me apple is very simple, its all about the absolute number (i know its simplistic, honestly i can't figure out what will happen with tech in the future, but the next 10 yrs i don't think will be as good as the last 10 yrs for apple, unless apple comes out with another break through product which is possible i.e the tv, or siri becomse more useful and you can monetize it but that is hard to handicap)

 

last 12 months apple made 40bil, if you grow that at 10% a yr compounded it will be 64bil  in 5 yrs if you grow that another 5 yrs it'll be $100bil

 

i just have a hard time seeing that happen. numbers this size is just hard to grow. i mean you can argue apple and still do it, sure its possible, but once apple is in every country in every carrier, it becomes harder and harder to do. in the past, apple was only in certain countries, or some carriers don't carry etc.

 

the competitors are better equip now, coming from all angels.

 

sure its possible that apple will continue to pump out 30 to 40bil a year at those numbers what should the company be worth and how they do with the cash is an issue for me.

 

also in my previous posts i think apple has a higher risk of getting hit hard due to their lack of product/revenue/profit diversification

 

 

EDIT: above is long term, short term anything can happen, a pop in this stock to 500 or 600 is definitely possible.

 

 

[Parsad]

then you've made a pointless statement, because every profession has people who make bad investors/businessman for one reason or another. i woudl argue that engineers and scientists on the whole make much better investors/businessman than any other profession.

 

So you think engineering and common sense don't mix. What a preposterous thing to say. Why don't you say that to Henry singleton

 

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers!

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

Bill Gates was an engineer also.

Ajit Jain, Jack Welch, Prem Watsa,  etc, etc, etc

 

I can tell you one thing, engineers have a better grasp of facts, LOL.

 

Again, did I say all engineers?  I said engineers make some of the worst businesspeople and investors because they are overly analytical.  I never said all engineers makes terrible businesspeople or investors. 

 

For engineers, I would have presumed you both would have read my sentence in more detail and understood that.  Apparently, you two fall into the exceptional category as well, and aren't that analytical after all.  Cheers!

 

If my statement was pointless, then it was probably about as pointless as your statement about having an engineering degree and being able to grasp the difference between the iPad and Surface better than non-engineers.  Since both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates do not have engineering degrees, I'm surprised they even knew the difference!  Cheers!

[hardincap]

Lol you are grasping at straws. Anyway enough from me on this. It was entertaining but way off topic!

[Guest valueInv]

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

 

 

Knock yourself out.  Cheers!

 

http://investor.google.com/corporate/2004/ipo-founders-letter.html

 

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/01/technology/google_buffett/

 

Let me tell you something. I used to work right across the street from Google. I used to go way lunch in their cafeteria sometimes.  I have a lot of friends who used work there, even more who deal with them. You can't go to a party in the Valley without running into someone from Google. I am having lunch a few 100 yards away from Google offices as i type this.There's more I can't disclose.

 

I KNOW Google. Google is not modeled after Berk in practice.

[Guest valueInv]

So you think engineering and common sense don't mix. What a preposterous thing to say. Why don't you say that to Henry singleton

 

Yes, but they often become too analytical and exclude common sense.  Most analysts are terrible investors as well.  Investing often requires a simplified view, and not overly analytical.  You are welcome to call me simple! 

 

Did I say all engineers are bad investors?  Brin & Page obviously aren't any typical engineer.  Their business culture is modelled after Berkshire.  What about Paul Allen...the Woz?  Would you call them brilliant investors or good engineers who were fortunate they knew Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.  Cheers!

 

You think Google's business culture is modeled after Berk?  ;D ;D ;D

Bill Gates was an engineer also.

Ajit Jain, Jack Welch, Prem Watsa,  etc, etc, etc

 

I can tell you one thing, engineers have a better grasp of facts, LOL.

 

Again, did I say all engineers?  I said engineers make some of the worst businesspeople and investors because they are overly analytical.  I never said all engineers makes terrible businesspeople or investors. 

 

My bad, I guess I missed the part where you said FEW engineers. LOL.