Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doren who wrote (170248)	6/3/2014 1:06:51 AM
From: Ryan Bartholomew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

I'd say conceptually you don't understand the difference between Apple, Google and Microsoft. I mean look at computers. Apple had a negligible share once, but came back and continues to thrive while others wither and die. You don't seem to understand why. It doesn't seem that complex to me. Its the Tortoise and the Hare paradigm. It makes almost all share arguments moot. No, I get it, and I even agree that they have been and probably always will keep building upon that loyal base. I disagree, however, that share doesn't become instrumental at some point. The Mac is thriving after many years with a relatively small market share... but it's also responsible for a tiny portion of Apple's profits. Apple could lock in the same scenario with the iPhone and iPad. I'll address this more when I reply to MGV's post later.

To: Doren who wrote (170248)	6/3/2014 12:13:27 PM
From: MGV	1 Recommendation Recommended By aaplAnnie Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

I'd say conceptually you don't understand the difference between Apple, Google and Microsoft. I mean look at computers. Apple had a negligible share once, but came back and continues to thrive while others wither and die. You don't seem to understand why. It doesn't seem that complex to me. Its the Tortoise and the Hare paradigm. It makes almost all share arguments moot.I really don't think they do marketing all that well. Better than Microsoft certainly but not phenomenally well. Ditto. It is on this point that I gave him the benefit of the doubt for some time. He represented he was here because he wanted to learn more about Apple. Implicit was that he didn't understand Apple. I took him at his word. What has become clear is that he was disingenuous in saying he wants to learn about Apple. He clearly believes he understands Apple well, better than the Apple fanboy dupes (in his view) here and, therefore, he has no intent or desire of learning because he doesn't think he has anything to learn. That is why he hasn't evolved on Apple and why he keeps making the same data defying arguments against Apple.