Apple's Long Road To $300 264
itwbennett writes "Apple shares inched over $300 for the first time Wednesday, nearly 30 years after Apple's initial public offering in December 1980. But it hasn't been a steady climb. In fact, says blogger Chris Nurney, 'Apple's stock history can be divided into two clear periods — the early years, from the IPO through Steve Jobs's long absence from the company after losing a power struggle in 1985, and the modern Jobs era, which began on September 16, 1997.' The bottom line: 'If you had purchased $10,000 of Apple stock the same month that Jobs again began leading the company, your shares would be worth $554,000 today. Not a bad return on the investment.'"
You didn't even have to purchase it that early (Score:5, Informative)
Steve Jobs came back in 1997 and it had a small surge that was crushed in the dot com boom. Up to early 2004, you could acquire shares reasonably close to the 1997 price, it fluctated 1.5-2x, sometimes 3x, but after early 2004 it skyrocketed.
1997-2004 is when they had all those color iMacs and gaudy design (remember those awful clamshell notebooks?) befoe the industrial design. It returned to profitabilty, to be sure, and laid a lot of other groundwork, like 2001 was the release of OS X, to be sure.
And that same year (2001) iPod was released. Think about that. For almost 3 years after iPod's release, you could still have bought Apple at a bargain basement price. It took a long time for Wall Street to shed the malaise it had with Apple after the late 80s and early/mid-90s decline.
Re:How is Apple's stock price not a bubble? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad news (Score:4, Informative)
They can go for the best Office/Documents/Outlook integration possible - and who would not love it? .docx file as of now - this is where Windows Mobile 7 can enter the market and capture it.
I have not seen many phones which can properly format a moderately complex
Yeah, but if you've seen the direction Microsoft is taking with Windows Phone 7, that's not it. They are going for "social networking" and "iPhone/Android knock-off," not "Mobile Business Computing."
Re:My Two Cent Analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Read more carefully please. The OP said "That was the reason the original Apple 2 was successful. You didn't have to know how to wield a soldering iron to have an affordable home computer." At the time the Apple ][ was released, the late '70s, that was pretty much true.
Re:No, Windows NT was not always better then OS 9 (Score:1, Informative)
let me resize a window on any edge, not just a tiny 10x10 pixel corner... oh and double click to maximise... how I could dream!
Window management is better in MS Windows than OSX, unless I am missing some magic key combination.
Note: I develop both on Windows and OSX machines
Re:How is Apple's stock price not a bubble? (Score:3, Informative)
If you think Apple, the company, has no influence over AAPL, the stock, you're a complete idiot. In absolute seriousness you'd need a combination of total ignorance of the facts and a complete disinterest in discovering them for you to draw that conclusion.
You have m shares, and Apple's projected value in tangable assets like cash (from selling gizmos), facilities, and personnel in the near future is X. X = m * $n.
The housing market imploded because the estimates of X were a mixture of delusion, fiction, and outright lies. By comparision Apple's financials are available in easy-to-digest quarterly reports.
Resolution independent artwork (Score:2, Informative)
Vector assets are already supported on OS X. Vector assets aren't supported on iOS for performance reasons, but the APIs are the same.
Re:News For Nerds??? Stuff That Matters??? (Score:3, Informative)
As you are, a self professed nerd, you likely have a reasonable grip on logic. Consider this hypothetical example:
Joe sixpack is a guy. A guy who likes to drink beer, but he does not like to drink wine.
Joe sixpack asserts that because he does not like wine and that he is a guy, that guys do not like to drink wine.
This is hasty generalisation, that is drawing a conclusion about an entire group based on insufficient evidence.
In your original post you stated you weren't interested in share prices, and you also said that you were a nerd. Subsequently you went on to say that the whole point of your first post was that "stock prices is not news for nerds".
You concluded that stock prices is not news for nerds, based on the fact that you are a nerd that is not interested in stock prices. You therefore appear to have fallen foul of the logical fallacy outlined above. QED