% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Apple Inc. Message Board

  • Tamper_98 Tamper_98 Dec 10, 1997 8:56 AM Flag

    NEW LOW !

    At least you'll be able to print foodstamps with your Mac!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • you better rearrange your tea leaves buddy. You ain't calling them sooo well now. hehehe

      got caught with your pants down again?

    • Now look what you wrote again

    • Thanks for your reply. I think the real focus here is Apple's technology advantage; among other things. This-they must focus on-and-exploit ASAP. The reports I'm seeing from the on-line Apple store are very encouraging-to the point where it's tempting to by another several hundred shares !

      I joined IBM (out of the military) in 1988.. From what I saw in my beginning, IBM's PC position philosophy really focussed on a mere "presence" in the market; and not to "dominate" it. The company at the time was really bent on next-generation mainframe
      as the revenue base-even in '88. The XT/SIMMS platform just happened to be more successful then originally planned; the tap dance "floor" got more slippery for IBM as the Justice Dept watched & waited. Meanwhile; Apple continues down it's path; starting to stumble. Along came the adventures of Bill & Andy; & the technology is now stagnant. This is what erks me the most.. I; the consumer- want & "deserve" the best quality for the money. (Not the latest software "band-aid" to get around another Pentium
      flaw). This arrogance from Intel is an embarrassment to he industry. If Apple can provide better technology (and I know it can) I'll bring my Mac into my IBM office & run it next to my IBM PC. Personally; I don't think my boss would bat an eye; even though we are both now considered "old school~~layoff" survivors..

      C'mon guys-let the Mac "Pheonix" contiune !

    • your response completely mis-states (mis-analyzes?) my messages

      sentences 1 & 2 are complete mis-statements or mis-read by you.

      sentence 3 is just a repeat (almost) of my statement (which i'll stand by.

      sentence 4 is what started this "dialogue" and is what you still don't get. so what if 1.2 billion in cash doesn't cover 2.0 billion in current liabilities? it's the TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS (which includes the cash) that must cover TOTAL CURRENT LIABLITIES. get it??? few companies, IF ANY, have cash in excess of their current liablities. they have a/r inventory and other current assets to be converted into cash that is used to pay current liabilities. it's called cash flow (management).

      please, after 40 years of PREPARING these things, i think i know what i'm talking about.
      i have to put myself in kstars camp when i say i have no quarrel with you figures, only your analysis of them. please try to be understanding that others may express opinions if unqualified. i try.
      one last though (and i do mean last) try message #617 and see if you can't bring yourself to join me in that thought.

    • In message 631, you state that you have no problem with a current ratio of 1.85 because Apple made the payment on it's long term debt.

      It seems that what you are saying is that as long as Apple isn't in default on it's loans, you have no problem. As an investor, I'd be a little more forward looking that that. But it's your money.

      In message 622, you state that you have no problem with the current ratio, and that you have no problem with the long term debt because other companies have debt.

      Much is made of Apple's 1.2 billion in cash. However, they have 1.8 billion in current liabilities.

      Shareholder equity is disappearing at an alarming rate, too. Looking at the balance sheet, we see that Apple only has about 1.2 billion in shareholder equity left. It had 2.0 billion
      last year.

    • Approx $400,000 sales a day on their web site. I'm assuming this will increase when Apple finally gets their advertising right. I'd like to think that's a good start, but not really sure what it means for overall sales. Anybody have any ideas?

      This is the best statement from their press release (their recommitment part):

      Apple Computer, Inc. ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II, and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is now recommitted to its original mission to bring the best personal computing products and support to students, educators, designers, scientists, engineers, businesspersons, and consumers in over 140 countries around the world.

    • My company just outsources ALL our mainframe systems to IBM-GS. 5 year contract for $200,000,000.

      There are a lot of "us'es" out there. This adds up...

    • on Feb. 9 1995 Jobs answered Louis Rukeyser on the question of APPLE:
      LR: ...What went wrong at Apple ?
      SPJ: Oh know Apple...I haven't been there in a long time..but my perception is...
      LR: We won't blame you for what has happened in last ten years.
      SPJ: No..I mean my perception may not be complete. the way I see it.. I mean Apple is a company that
      was based on innovation. When I left Apple, ten years ago, we were ten years ahead of anybody else. I mean it took
      Microsoft ten years to copy Windows. The problem was that Apple stood still. Even though it invested cumulatively
      billions in R&D. The output has not been there .. and people have caught up with it. And it's differentiation has eroded,
      in particular with respect to Microsoft. And so the way out for Apple..and I still think Apple has a future. There's some
      awfully-good people there..and there's a tremendous brand loyalty to that company. I think the way out is not to slash
      and burn,... is to innovate. That's how Apple got to it's glory and I think, that's how Apple could return to it.

    • This debate with lajoie reminds me of how my father and I disagree about certain stocks. He (my pops) looks almost exclusively at the company's financials while I probably look too much at a company's market.

      By focusing too much on numbers you can lose sight of other important things like the prospect of an incredible turnaround which creates exceptional opportunity for profit. Some of us shareholders think we might make some money here, for SUBSTANTIVE reasons.

      My focus on the product/market side of the company sometimes gets me involved with companies with neat products, but terrible financials.

      What I am saying is that there is another part of the story that you are honestly waxing off: (from aapriori)

      "This is not taken for granted when
      1) The product offers better performance for a lower price
      2) The product is considerably less costly to produce
      3) The product allows for flexible manufacturing based on consumer demand
      4) The product is produced using industry standard components which improve a previously dismal
      supplier chain
      5) The technology is in its earliest stages and whipping the tail of the competing product which
      will shortly be put to pasture. "

      Right now, people are buying these computers. People are buying cheap clones. People are buying OS8 in record numbers. IT IS happening. Rah.

      AAPL now operates the Number 3 e-commerce site on the web. Not bad for 30 days work. Rah Rah.

      2$ a share . . .I'll take it!

      GO AAPL!


    • dear lajoie

      what i was waiting for was your response to messages #622 & 631
      which were your responses to my responses, etc. with all the activity on this board lately, i can understand your possibly skipping over messages.

      as far as your message #675, you make some points, but i would like to respectfully submit that people posting to these boards come from a wide spectrum of education, investing expertise, etc.

      some are investors, some gamblers and some just people looking for something to do with idle cash. they have their right to come in and express views and we have to accept their right to do so with the understanding that we take everything with a grain of salt. anybody making investing decisions based solely on what they learn here should really have their heads examined.

      comments on #622 & 631, please?

    • View More Messages
111.6068+2.1068(+1.92%)10:38 AMEDT