I'm actually being completely serious with my question -- it was the first investment I ever made, and I figure someone here might have some insight on whether I should just sell them or not. $200 is still $200, right? Plus maybe someone else is in a similar boat, albeit with more shares.
Only basic thing that comes to mind is: Don't buy $200 worth of stock. If you pay a broker $10 commission, you're already down 10% as soon as you decide to do it ($10 to buy and $10 to sell). Hell, even if you're buying $2000 worth of stock, you've lost 1% right off the bat.
The stock market is a casino for rich people, not us.
Anyone making an engineering level salary in the US should be saving a portion of their money and investing in the stock market. There are a wide variety of options that involve no commissions and allow you to own a broad cross section of the market. The Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF is a good place to start. As are Vanguard's age based funds and automatically reallocate to more conservative positions as you get older.
Writing off the stock market as a "casino for rich people" is a good way to make yourself poorer.
I wish there was a crash course on this when I was in college. I've been meaning to understand stock market, how to get involved. The most I got was 401k but I don't even look at my Fidelity. I know certain industries are projecting or doing well currently... but ugh.
The best answer you got was to not invest in individual stocks at all, and instead to globally diversify using index funds. For example, you can own basically every significant publicly traded company in the world by holding just VTI and VXUS (Vanguard ETFs). Or equivalent mutual funds. Much simpler and lower risk.
I never bought any more individual shares like that, it was really just for the emotional aspect of making my first investment after finally having the money to do it. Right now I have my company 401k and Schwab ETFs.
There's no way for people to answer this honestly without understanding your personal tax situation and financial goals. And it's not enough money to concern a financial adviser by itself.
Keep in mind, you're gonna pay brokerage fees and capital gains if you try to handle this by yourself. None of that amounts to alot of money, but enough to cut into your profits if you screw something up and the IRS gets to you. Best advice is, if you're far from retirement, just figure out how to get it rolled into a Roth IRA or something unless you actually need the cash.
Apple has a problem with leadership. When managers aren't buying into a vision, mostly because it's murky at best, that is a big problem.
SV hubris believing you can go into any industry and disrupt the incompetent incumbents is laughable. FB found this out with phones and it sounds like Apple and Google are now figuring it out with cars.
The Netflix idea works here too: Apple and Google have to become more like GM and BMW before GM and BMW become more like Apple and Google. GM will have an awesome electric with a better range than a Tesla Model 3 this year! If they ever figure out aesthetics and software they will win.
Finally this article highlights what Musk has done at Tesla. They are the closest SV company to actually figure out manufacturing. It still remains to be seen but if they do it Tesla will be the market leader in cars.
>Apple has a problem with leadership. When managers aren't buying into a vision, mostly because it's murky at best, that is a big problem.
That's the inverse of what would actually be a big problem: managers BUYING into a "murky at best" vision.
>SV hubris believing you can go into any industry and disrupt the incompetent incumbents is laughable.
Isn't that what people said about music players and then about phones? Heck, they are already the #2 watchmaker in the world in profits too...
>FB found this out with phones and it sounds like Apple and Google are now figuring it out with cars.
Neither Google nor Apple have ever released in car. If anything, their setbacks are related to the advanced self-driving stuff they aspire to make, not some issue competing with existing car tech or distribution or anything.
Besides, tons of companies have entered the car market and gave established car companies a run for their money already. The Japanese obliterated the established Detroit order for example, and new Chinese cars are as good as anybody's for general use. Tesla also come out of nowhere and cornered a niche of the market. Heck, traditional car companies are so complacent and derivative that if anything it's the inverse of hubris to believe one can do better.
Nowadays, when most of the manufacturing the expertise is in assembly lines in China and the like, creating a new car to compete with existing models is laughably easy -- especially if you have $500 billion lying around.
Chinese cars are barely being imported in the U.S. (Three models so far). It has taken many years to get this far, and will take longer for them to have a similar reputation as, say, Korea.
Tesla has done well in the luxury car market, but they've been late and had quality issues. The Tesla 3 is not out yet and there is still a big risk they'll fail.
So, "laughably easy" is a major exaggeration. It's possible to launch a new car company but nobody finds it easy.
>Chinese cars are barely being imported in the U.S. (Three models so far). It has taken many years to get this far, and will take longer for them to have a similar reputation as, say, Korea.
Yes, but the US is a mere 5% of the global population and about 20% of global GDP (down from decades ago). You can be a huge player and not even play in the US market. The Chinese are already selling their cars in many global markets.
>Tesla has done well in the luxury car market, but they've been late and had quality issues. The Tesla 3 is not out yet and there is still a big risk they'll fail.
Tesla doesn't have Apple's half a trillion in the bank though. And which established car maker didn't have quality issues at various times (and still today)?
Palm CEO in 2006 Ed Colligan, about the upcoming Apple iPhone: “We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.”
Dell CEO Kevin Rollins, after Dell had released the Dell DJ Ditty (lol) mp3 player: "So this [the iPod] might be an interesting new product but I’m not really believing this is going to turn the industry upside down." (...) ""Apple's created a niche. If you look at the grand scheme of things, this quarter we are supposed to achieve something like $13.5 billion in revenue. Apple's in the $2.4 billion (region), so the size and scale is not even in the same league."
Creative's CEO about Apple's iPod new model circa 2005: "I think the whole industry will just laugh at it, because the flash people — it’s worse than the cheapest Chinese player. Even the cheap, cheap Chinese brand today has display and has FM. They don’t have this kind of thing, and they expect to come out with a fight; I think it’s a non-starter to begin with."
Phones is a really weird example here, considering that the two dominant phone players are both SV companies that went into that industry and crushed the incompetent incumbents.
I see no reason to think that Apple could do with cars what they did with the iPhone, but that particular example doesn't make any sense.
I can name a few differences, even if I don't think it's impossible.
Phones were ready for a natural complete upgrade from brick phones to smartphones. The mobile environment was there, all the network components were coming online to make it a really useful device, processors were getting to a good stage for mobile usage where it made sense to make the jump and the jump was right into what Apple already knew pretty well. The phone part of smart phones is pretty minor, quite honestly. Smartphones weren't so much an evolution of dumb phones, they were a complete redesign and replacement thereof. The technology that puts an OS in your hand just did the job of being a phone better than a brick phone did[1], and it came with a bunch of extra features that people didn't know they wanted.
Cars are a little different. Fundamentally, a self-driving car is still a car with an OS attached. It's not so much just figuring out the OS part of it, it's also getting the engineering on a vehicle right, and I'm guessing with autonomous cars there's a lot you have to take into consideration when it comes to the mechanical aspects. It's not quite like the phone situation where you just replace brick phone with smart phone - a smart car is fundamentally the same as a dumb car except that you don't drive the smart car (and in some models, you do). There's a lot more to take into consideration, a much larger spectrum of rules and regulations, and honestly the car part of smart cars is pretty involved. It's not that Apple doesn't have the money to throw at car R&D, it's just it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to do it.
Again, I don't doubt they could do it, but the barrier of entry just seems higher here, and it's not as natural of a segue for Apple either. They're not just building a tiny computer with an iCar, they'd be building a car with an Apple computer.
[1]I realize that many prefer the brick phones to smart phones and that smart phones are pretty bad at the phone part of being a phone, but ultimately between the myriad of communication apps available, you have more communication options available in your hand than you do with a brick phone, and more ways to do the communication thing.
Limited/no cross-sale synergies with other products
Massive up-front costs to establish a manufacturing network
Massive up-front costs to establish a dealer and maintenance network
Strong existing competition which will only get stronger with time
No clear USP ("Made by Apple" is not a USP)
The only way to crush the market would be to make a car that flies and to set up the infrastructure to make flying cars usable for domestic and work commuting.
Since that's not going to happen, the absolute best anyone expects from Apple Car is a me-too car that looks a bit nicer and rounder than the rest. And is available in white, black, pink, and gold. And it absolutely has to self-drive, because that's where the competition will be.
Apple is undoubtedly looking to change the car market.
If you imagine that people will buy, own, and sell cars the same way they do today, forever, then sure--an Apple car makes no sense. But it's pretty likely that the relationship between cars and people will change at some point, and that is the point at which Apple wants to be ready.
Or rather, just beyond that point--when the new direction is clear, but the early products still suck. That's when Apple likes to get into new markets.
Given that the range of possible ideas you're talking about extends from better software to power autonomous cars, through to an entirely autonomous electric car which Apple manufactures in its entirety, and also incorporates potential partnership with another brand such as BMW, it seems hard to believe that someone could dismiss Apple car as "a fundamentally bad idea".
> Limited/no cross-sale synergies with other products.
CarPlay is a fairly good example of this not being true. And if cars become fully autonomous, there's unending cross-sale opportunity for Apple (since people will be doing in cars what they do with Apple products outside of cars).
> Massive up-front costs
Apple has not incurred, as far as any of us know, any costs related to manufacturing, dealer, or maintenance networks.
> Strong existing competition
Strong by what measure? AI? UX for in-car systems? Industrial design?
> No clear USP ("made by Apple" is not a USP)
It is when for many people that's a byword for simplicity, smart features, and elegant design. In any event, it's hilarious that someone's arguing that a car the company has never acknowledged existing "has no USP".
> The only way to crush the market would be to make a car that flies and to set up the infrastructure to make flying cars usable for domestic and work commuting.
Apple has never sought to crush a market. They seek to have the highest share of profit in a market.
> the absolute best anyone expects from Apple Car is a me-too car that looks a bit nicer and rounder than the rest. And is available in white, black, pink, and gold. And it absolutely has to self-drive, because that's where the competition will be.
Yeah, if you arbitrarily cut out user experience and the integration of hardware and software as a competitive advantage, then Apple's car will just get people from A-B in the same way as any other car.
> Me-too isn't enough to win in that market.
Nobody except you is arguing that the Apple car would be "me-too" and completely devoid of any unique advantages which other car manufacturers would seek to emulate.
I completely agree, however people were saying pretty much the exact same things about Apple's phone efforts about ten years ago. In hindsight, it's clear that smartphones lined up just about perfectly with Apple's core competencies, but before they proved it in the market, people were saying just this sort of thing: the engineering is tough and different, the stuff Apple is good at isn't the stuff that's hard, regulation is far more difficult, it's not just a tiny computer, etc.
Now, just because they were wrong to say it then doesn't mean you're wrong to say it now. I think you're right. I'm just saying that phones are a terrible example to bring up if one is arguing that SV companies can't take over industries with entrenched incumbents.
I appreciate that a lot since I was one of the naysayers. Admittedly I was a bitter PPC Mac user upset that we weren't getting attention on the desktop side but I was still worried.
However, even if hindsight is 20/20, I do feel that a lot of the infrastructure and resources necessary for an iPhone were just there already and apple seized an emerging market. With cars I feel that the regulatory, technical, and physical infrastructure for smart cars isn't there yet for anything disruptive. Driverless cars still appear to need a lot of hand holding, and while there will be an investment payout eventually for folks in the game at the moment, I'm not sure it's as great as they are hoping it as soon as they are hoping. In my mind it makes more sense to have an apple iOS port for cars than an iCar. Or set up the infrastructure that driverless car folk are going to want. Siri taxi for example. Siri pizza delivery. Siri breathalyzer and/or drunk talk analyzer and safe delivery to home.
Basically whereas I feel that in the mobile space controlling the hardware 100% make sense, with the cars maybe it makes more sense to just get the software right. Maybe Apple sees the writing on the wall and figures very tightly controlled hardware so not much testing needed/similar performance.
I do this the differences are great enough Between the car and phone research to warrant the move. But maybe once again I'm just bitter Apple isn't paying attention to their desktop line. :p
I don't even think the naysayers were particularly wrong. Apple succeeded by fundamentally changing what a smartphone was, not by beating Blackberry and Nokia and such at their own game.
The biggest challenges were being extremely energy efficient to get acceptable battery life out of a tiny battery, and being extremely data efficient to get acceptable costs from expensive cellular carriers. People pointed out, and rightfully so, that Apple wasn't good at either.
They didn't anticipate that Apple would build a phone that was basically a thin shell around a (relatively) huge battery, or that they'd manage to convince a major carrier to offer an "unlimited" data plan. Suddenly, the stuff that the incumbents were good at didn't matter that much.
I don't see any way to do an equivalent move in the automobile industry. I don't think there are any areas that everybody is failing to fundamentally rethink, the way they were with energy and data usage a decade ago, where Apple could jump in and change the whole game. But I wouldn't bet money on it....
The biggest challenges were being extremely energy efficient to get acceptable battery life out of a tiny battery, and being extremely data efficient to get acceptable costs from expensive cellular carriers.
I'd reword your first challenge as moving what had been theretofore a desktop OS onto a handheld device with acceptable performance/power consumption. Once that was done, it provided massive leverage for Apple over any of their competitors due to the maturity and flexibility of their toolchain, as well as a wealth of developers both inside and outside the company who could exploit it.
It's both. They shrank their OS down to fit on a handheld device, but they also massively expanded what a "handheld device" could do. After the iPhone was announced, RIM supposedly couldn't figure out how Apple could possibly be doing all this fancy stuff and still have acceptable battery life. The answer, of course, was that they just made a gigantic battery. Amusing post about it here:
The industry did not jump from dumb phones to iPhone. Blackberry pioneered the market and had a stranglehold on it until Apple came along and stomped them.
For all the hate GM get the EV1 was way ahead of their Time. Its sad that GM didn't have the leadership that supported that effort. We would probably have viable low cost EVs by now.
What's the path they would have followed? The battery in the EV1 was crappy and expensive, is the thesis that billions of automotive dollars would have accelerated progress in battery research? Is it useful to lose money producing electric vehicles while doing that research?
Which GM did. The Chevy Bolt is the result. Pre-orders start today.[1] $37,495 before $7,500 Federal tax rebate. Claimed range 238 miles. Delivery in about 10 weeks.
This will change the auto landscape drastically. This is a product of the Chevrolet Division of General Motors. They're good at making and selling large numbers of cars. It may not be as cool as Tesla, but there will be millions of these things soon.
I was part of a meeting at retailerX where a VP or mid-level manager that was representing the company at CurrentC gave a talk. As she told it things were going swimmingly and she talked about her lead and how she and retailerX were respected by the other retailers for their IT prowess. After that meeting I knew CurrentC was dead. This lady was chosen to lead the project and most mid-level managers at retailerX were completely incompetent. RetailerXs IT department is staffed by H1-Bs and get things done through brute force. If that's the best they could find they were in trouble from the start.
Wal-Mart made the wise decision of going solo and launching their own app a little bit later. From what I hear Wal-Mart labs has a great staff.
Wow for an institution like MIT to offer a professorship to someone so clearly uncrdentialed sends a horrible signal to faculty and students. I will not talk about this persons lack of credentials because apparently that's a personal attack but I will say that academia and professorsship has everything to do with the philosophy of a subject not just its practice. I would never hire a surgeon who never went to medical school or a rocket scientist who didn't have a phD. Maybe they've achieved knowledge outside of academia, if that's the case that's where they should practice there skills, but to now have them share that unique and disorganized philosophy with students trying to learn structurally is unfair to the hard work and sacrifice those students have made to be able to get to MIT in the first place. They've earned the right to be taught and mentored by someone who has taken the same path they have and put in the time and admirable effort to study their subject academically.
Our prestigious universities like MIT are institutions that are aspirational to so many. Those who have taken the long and arduous path from student to researcher and then professors deserve the fruits of there labor. This is a slap in the face to so many people who have dedicated their lives to the advancement of knowledge.
It's also a pretty big insult to say that Ito doesn't deserve the job solely because he doesn't meet a cookie cutter list of credentials. MITs Media Lab is an amazing position and there is no way in hell they would've given the position to someone that doesn't wholey deserve it. Just look at the appointment of the head researcher for YC basic income project. New PhD student chosen over tenured professors from great institutions. Obviously, not everyone is the exception, but some people have qualities that aren't going to be noticed by someone reading an Internet article.
This sends a signal to students in the same way bill Gates sends a signal to students saying "drop out and you'll become a billionaire." you'd be an idiot to try and exactly replicate the unconventional paths of certain successful individuals. Do you really think just because he didn't follow the same path he can't help students ? Do you really think he doesn't bring things to the table that others don't? Do you really think he will stop students from getting what you mention from, I don't know, everyone else who went through the same path? Give me a break.
There's a word for this, and it's the word MIT used: "Professor of the Practice".
You wouldn't a huge portion of the university's faculty to be untrained in research or teaching -- that would be like running a software company where everyone has great ideas but no one knows how to lay down LOCs. But one person here or there who has something significant to bring to the table can be good for the institution.
> but to now have them share that unique and disorganized philosophy with students trying to learn structurally is unfair to the hard work and sacrifice those students have made to be able to get to MIT in the first place.
The author is not directly involved in leading a research group or in teaching. He's a director -- a vision/leadership role. And if he ever were to take up either teaching or advising research, he'd probably receive support and guidance from people who do have Ph.D.'s and have learned the long way around how to research/teach.
Again, that model obviously doesn't work well if you have a huge number of people like this, but one here or there can be a positive thing.
Awesome site. Ever since I saw fivestar.io I've been wanting to do an Amazon affiliate site. He gave an update a couple of months after launch and said he was making a nice ~$300/month.
This is so on point. After graduating college I found myself in the "loser" layer surrounded by the "clueless." The org was so big I didn't even get to see the "sociopaths" at the top. 2 years of putting in the "bare minimum" I quit only to find the same structure in my new job. I'm now planning my second exit this time hoping to find a lower paying but cushier job were I can serve my 8 hour daily sentence without having to talk to anyone and in a real office probably browsing HN all day (I already have a couple of apps out there).
I've also been working on FIRE, entrepreneurship and hobbies that could provide income. But the most important thing and what I wish I knew when I was starting my adult life is that obtaining true happiness from a career is bullshit. I now enjoy spending my time with family and on my own interests. I just wish I had more of that time.
It's depressing that internet makes it so easy for a person with a mental disorder to give advice and lure confused teenagers and minors. I wonder if there's anything we can do, short of censoring internet itself.
I'm really glad that the merger between Men's Warehouse and Jos A Bank's bombed. These were two great companies that constantly tried to one-up each other. I feel that level of competition led to both companies doing well. Then they got greedy and decided that competition wasn't easy and that collusion through merger would be better. Now they've killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Discount men's wear was Men's Warehouse and Jos A Bank's. I expect to see new companies enter this market to fill the void.
Corporate governance is a huge problem in the market right now. Like others have mentioned workers and stockholders will pay for the ineptness of this board. Short term gain via activist investors is leading to crappy mergers, stupid breakups, and what should be illegal inversions.
I actually believe this is another sign of a top in the market when you see "investors" trying to squeeze the last bit of gains though these types of schemes.
This is what happens when you pay ENGINEERS less than 100k in NYC! This is what happens when you hire a bunch of H1Bs! This is what happens when you don't invest in tech infrastructure!
Why aren't Vladimir Tenev and Baiju Bhatt being acquihired? Why isn't David Byttow making 1 million plus as a full stack engineer for the NYSE? It's because companies, even those heavily dependent on their systems, see tech workers as a cost instead of THE business.
This will more than likely never change. Underpaid engineers vastly outperform their salaries. But when things like this happen I can't help but feel a little glee.
