4 ms·

Don't you think I know that? I've owned their stock since 08. But the past isn't what matters - but chances for future growth. Success always comes before the

Don't you think I know that? I've owned their stock since 08. But the past isn't what matters - but chances for future growth. Success always comes before the fall - Apple can either stabilise or fall. They will fall. Linux won - Android is Linux. Consumer electronics are Linux. Servers are Linux. Everything runs on Linux. Microsoft is done. Google wins. I own Google now.

veemjeem 14y ago
I wouldn't exactly confuse Google with Linux. They're linked because of Android, but if some company innovated on the search engine front and took Google's monopoly, Google would be in a rough spot. Linux was winning before Google arrived, and Google still would've won had they used BSD instead. Nobody cares what OS is running underneath google.com
- confluence 14y ago
  I would then sell Google now then wouldn't I - just like I sold Apple.
dmpk2k 14y ago
but chances for future growth I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done". I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.
- confluence 14y ago
  Sorry but I'm an investor. Companies need to grow my investment above 11% a year to be worth extra volatility/liquidity/market risks. Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.
  - dmpk2k 14y ago
    From an individual perspective that makes sense. That does not change what I said, however. This is old and beaten ground though, which you are no doubt familiar with. I'll refrain from treading it again.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  >I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. // The current capitalist system revolves around rich people making more money because they are rich - that only works if they invest in companies that can return a [quick] profit. It is very sad.

veemjeem 14y ago

I wouldn't exactly confuse Google with Linux. They're linked because of Android, but if some company innovated on the search engine front and took Google's monopoly, Google would be in a rough spot. Linux was winning before Google arrived, and Google still would've won had they used BSD instead. Nobody cares what OS is running underneath google.com

confluence 14y ago
I would then sell Google now then wouldn't I - just like I sold Apple.

dmpk2k 14y ago

but chances for future growth I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. If a company isn't growing, it's "done". I realize that isn't quite what you mean, but then you shouldn't write it. The mindset is actively destructive.

confluence 14y ago
Sorry but I'm an investor. Companies need to grow my investment above 11% a year to be worth extra volatility/liquidity/market risks. Mature companies are like bonds - I don't invest in them because they don't generate enough capital in return for the risks taken.
- dmpk2k 14y ago
  From an individual perspective that makes sense. That does not change what I said, however. This is old and beaten ground though, which you are no doubt familiar with. I'll refrain from treading it again.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
>I find it thoroughly creepy that we define success through growth in a finite world. // The current capitalist system revolves around rich people making more money because they are rich - that only works if they invest in companies that can return a [quick] profit. It is very sad.