To The Moon

There is a lot more marketing than tech. The analysts keep applauding things which are considered normal elsewhere. For example one says Apple looks for profits and revenue instead of volume. If it's indeed so, why introduce so many options such as big, small, mini and RAM/storage variants? It could've been a one-trick pony all through. On the positive side Apple is in a unique position to optimize the iPhone system software unlike Android phones. This should result in better performance though at a higher price.

Loss of any major account is a worry. It also comes in the backdrop of QCOM losing ground in the core modem space to MTK.

Nice article. In the new space age, the P/S alone may not be the right measure. Along with the primary potential there are also avenues for leveraging the innovations for earthly businesses which could propel the stock for a nice take-off. About 2 decades ago an online company named Amazon was posting losses quarter after quarter but was still the darling of the stock market with lofty valuations. In fact the stock analysts ended up redefining the P/S for the knowledge industry with some justification. This also could be a case of such high risk, high reward scenario.

I see too many risks with this approach. since the insider holding is minimal, the management direction can be easily manipulated by the institutional holders.Though public hold a large chunk, they don't influence day to day operations and also are susceptible to panic reactions leading to high volatility with the herd mentality. There is no stabilizing cover in case of sentimental fluctuations.

If the stock price is not backed by the fundamentals, investing becomes gambling.

Except for an outlier in 2015, we see that 5% pullback was taking longer over the years, starting from 200 days and reaching 400+ days. From this stat, we can expect the pullback to take another 200 days unless there's a big disaster. Also, the table would've been complete if the article had provided the progressive S&P gain from Nov to date for comparison with other data.

In the same lines, Google/Android should copyright the word "sleep" so that no-one else can use it.

If you have a problem with their playstore revenue sharing model, why are you still going behind them? You do it only because it's still profitable for you. You always had an option of directly providing it in your website for users to download Android version of your apps.Google, as a service provider here, should host the facility, put in some security and some R&D to ensure their users aren't impacted by unscrupulous elements and hackers posting app . 

The chart would've been worth 1000 words.

Just because a distribution channel is prone to be faulty, you don't need to use an absolute right over it like a firewall. You can make the same claim for chips, factory, telecom operators, distribution and even the userdata.Address the problem by collaborating instead of seclusion.