On May 29, 11:24 am, "Subway steel" <f...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> <ness...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > On May 29, 10:51 am, "Subway steel" <f...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> <ness...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> > Stock quotes, May 29, 2008 vs 1 year ago (source: Yahoo finance)
> >> > First today, next a year ago, then percentage change
> >> > MSFT 28.62 30.35 -6%
> >> > AAPL 187.86 114.35 +64%
> >> > GOOG 582.41 487.11 +23%
> >> > Yes, the year in which Vista was introduced has really lifted
> >> > Microsoft's spirits.
> >> Evidently you changed the time frame being looked at. Roy posted "for the
> >> year" meaning Year-to-Date and the 21% decline is consistent with a year
> >> to
> >> date time frame.
> > <snip>
> > Yes, everyone agrees that stock prices in the short term don't mean
> > much. That's one reason why I took a somewhat longer look. Let's
> > look at an even longer time frame, comparing Micrdosoft and its two
> > most important competitors (which VA Linux is not, BTW).
> > Today and 2 years ago:
> > MSFT 28.62 22.51 +27%
> > GOOG 582.41 371.94 +57%
> > AAPL 187.86 61.22 +207%
> Are you trying to make MSFT look bad or GOOG look bad because they both look
> bad compared to AAPL.
> > You do invest for the long term, don't you?
> My "investment" is simply having money taken out of my paycheck every month
> (with employer matching contribution) and putting it into a 401k. I don't
> have the time or experience to track individual stocks and leave stock
> trading to pros who know what they're doing.
> > Would you like to look at 4 years ago?
> Or better yet, how about real long term and get the total return over the
> life of the company. Since going public we have:
> MSFT +30,000%
> AAPL +8,000%
> GOOG +400%
> Who "wins" depends on how you set the rules.
Indeed. So why don't we compare the accumulated growth of a company
like MS over 25 years to a the growth of Google over less than 4
years? That sound's fair doesn't it?
Now I agree that Microsoft has done better than Apple in the 25-30
year time frame, although even with Apple's poor management during
during the 90's they still haven't been a bad investment. And of
course Microsoft has done well by stealing Apple's ideas and crushing
competitors with illegal abuse of monopoly power.
But since the point, as you say, is the question of whether Microsoft
is crumbling, shouldn't we look at the time frame of a reasonable
product cycle, say 4-5 years? Let's even give Microsoft the
advantage, by looking at the first year after they have introduced
their long-awaited new and shiny flagship DRM infested operating
And BTW, I wouldn't say Microsoft is crumbling, far from it, but they
aren't doing too well in any area where they have real competition,
and they haven't been the ones innovating(tm) anything.