Aapl

Discussion in 'Stocks' started by turkeyneck, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. What's up with the massive reversal near the close?
     
  2. AAPL really was weak today. I am short a lot of december 200 calls so I liked the action today. I think that there are alot of longs in apple who got in near that 80-100 low. It would probably be foolish to be greedy at the current level of 190 -200. I think some profit taking is in the works. I think it will re-test the 150 area. But who knows. If i was looking to go long aapl (i'm not) I might sell some 160 puts and see what happens. I have traded aapl hundreds of times since it was 11. a share and It always supprises me.

    good trading all
     
  3. Has to do with APPLE and VERIZON deal...

    While Kaufman Bros. believes that a deal between Apple (AAPL) and Verizon (VZ) may take longer than expected, the firm thinks that iPhone can continue to perform well without a Verizon deal. The firm thinks that Sprint (S) and/or T-Mobile (DT) could be better partners for Apple than Verizon at this point and the firm reiterates a Buy rating on Apple
     
  4. Apple: AppleInsider discusses Caris note; Mac sales projected to grow 26% in 2010, outpacing PC market, Caris says (196.23 ) -Update : AppleInsider reports Apple is predicted to continue its gains on the rest of the PC market in 2010, with Mac sales projected to grow by 26% while the industry is forecast to see a 16% year-over-year increase. If the predictions of Robert Cihra, analyst with Caris, prove true, it would give Apple a total 4% market share for the 2010 calendar year.


    I still like the upside
     
  5. gobar

    gobar

    what do u think of the chart?

    its a quarterly chart of appl where u will see -ve divergence on MACD if aapl closes down on the quarterly?

    any info
     
    • aapl.png
      File size:
      68.4 KB
      Views:
      171
  6. I see the same. Other traders do also. AAPL jumped 9 Pts down off the open today.
     
  7. Broke the 50-day EMA.
     
  8. Tom631

    Tom631

  9. bat1

    bat1

    Apple machines are less reliable
    So much for you get what you pay for
    By Nick Farrell

    EXPENSIVE, Apple machines are actually less reliable than cheaper machines made by Asus, Toshiba and Sony.

    A report by Squaretrade looked at records on more than 30,000 individual laptops in terms of reliability.

    While kool-aid drinking Mac fans are brainwashed into believing that the extra money they spend on their toys buys them superior hardware, what the figures actually show is that their machines are less reliable than gear made by Asus, Toshiba and Sony.

    At least they can be reassured that they are more reliable than machines from HP, but since they make most of their comparisons with kit from Dell, Apple fans will be disappointed that the two vendors are about the same in terms of reliability.

    Laptops from Toshiba and Sony were nearly 40 per cent more reliable than those from HP.

    "Acer, Gateway and HP had failure rates significantly higher than the average," the report said.

    It seems that the figures show that, despite the hype, what Apple sells is nothing more than an average PC. You get charged an arm and a leg for one of Apple's sleek looking toys, but you would be better off with a machine from Asus, Toshiba or Sony, in terms of reliability.

    Apparently a third of all laptops will fail within three years, which seems to suggest that all laptop punters are being sold lemons at a rate that would be unacceptable anywhere else in the electronics industry.

    Fewer than five per cent of the laptops surveyed failed in the first year, while eight per cent more failed in subsequent years. Two-thirds of the reported failures were from hardware malfunctions and the remainder were reported as accidental damage.

    Netbooks costing less than $400 were the most likely to fail with 5.8 per cent reportedly malfunctioning over a one-year period. They were 20 per cent more likely to fail than entry level laptops.

    You can read the full report at Squaretrade. µ
     
    #10     Dec 5, 2009