Cramer: Apple won the Samsung war; don’t trade Apple stock, own it

Credit Suisse upgraded Apple citing strong iPhone sales and expectations the company will return more cash to shareholders.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer says don’t trade Apple stock, own it.

If this is a war between Apple and Samsung, I think Apple has won the war…

How can you not own the [AAPL] stock? Why should you trade it? You should own it./ — Jim Cramer

[protected-iframe id=”5720e6767b21dc4249104194714ce6f9-17146794-18685410″ info=”http://player.theplatform.com/p/gZWlPC/cnbc_global?playertype=synd&byGuid=3000346199&size=530_298″ width=”530″ height=”298″]

Direct link to video here.

Related article:
Apple’s stock rallies after Credit Suisse upgrade – January 13, 2015

20 Comments

    1. Cramer and others have put Apple down for so long it became a running joke. Then Apple clobbered EVERYONE so many times in a row, they got a little tired of looking stupid so often that they are now upping Apple. But YES they are still clowns.

      LOL

      Sadly, the few people who do a serious analysis of Apple and come up with consistently good reports, usually get downplayed cause the articles do not get good hits.

      Sad.

    1. Each person is different due to their needs. I am all in for my retirement fund in Apple. It has almost tripled in value. But I watch the world carefully. If Apple starts doing a lot of really stupid things, I would move the money out to safer ground.

      I do have a few shares in a play market. I try to catch the big ups and downs buying and selling for profit. So far I have almost doubled my initial investment. But you have to wait for the market and if you miss a trend, you wait for Apple to rebound back up or down. One trade took two years (the last really big dip). My goal on it is to just not lose money. So far so good.

      1. News flash rob: Apple is 2+ years behind other smartwatch makers. Like everyone else, Apple will have to earn their way into the marketplace. Seems like everyone here is assuming instant success, conveniently forgetting all the failures that Apple had when it released past products that were more style over substance. And there is no doubt that Apple had to benchmark every other watch on the market before it was able to make a move. Since Cook took over, Apple has been late to enter practically any market space.

        1. ???

          Smartphones had been in existence since the early 2000s. They were made (at the time) by Palm (remember them?), Samsung (remember Blackjack?), RIM (that’s the original name of Blackberry), Nokia (remember Symbian OS?) for years, before Apple announced the iPhone. We all know how smartphones changed after the iPhone.

          MP3 players existed for years before the iPod. They were made by Rio (Remember Diamond?), Creative (remember Nomad Jukebox?), well before the iPod. Again, we all know what happened to the PMP (Portable Media Player) market…

          Well before Cook, Apple took their time entering existing markets, before profoundly re-defining them. iWatch doesn’t seem to be any different.

          And the “style over substance” argument is as lame and as old as ever.

          1. Do you enjoy your Cube? Style over substance.

            Hockey puck mouse? Style over substance.

            Beats headphones? Style over substance.

            I am not denying the Apple _may_ have a hit, but it is not preordained as many people seem to think.

            1. I was a Cube owner for about five years (until it was simply too slow to run newer Mac OSes). Cube was a great computer, but people simply didn’t understand its purpose.

              I will give you a hokey puck mouse; Steve admitted as much.

              As for Beats, that was not developed by Apple, and the actual product (the headphones) was likely the least of reasons for the acquisition.

              At this point, a hit is virtually preordained. With such a long, long string of hits (vs. one hockey-puck mouse), the odds are stacked very much in favour. An unpleasant surprise is possible, but quite unlikely.

            2. We shall see. However, the fact remains that other manufacturers are on their 3rd generation (or more, for many specialized wrist mounted devices) whereas Apple is just getting out of the gate. So as usual, rob’s assertion that everyone is waiting for Apple is patently wrong. Apple is the latecomer in this product space. And copying … well, so far there’s absolutely nothing revealed about the Apple hardware that is revolutionary. The only thing new will be apps — which will of course be driven largely by 3rd party developers. I predict it will be a success if battery life and non-pairing functions are adequate. If not, it’s just another tethered gadget that many/most people will not find worthwhile.

              If the MDN crew can compile a list of functions that only the Apple Watch can do out of the gate, then maybe I will change my mind, but this looks to me more like a niche fashion play more than a mainstream smash success.

            3. As I said before, this isn’t the first time Apple enters an existing market and redefines it. They did it with the iPod (where market was dominated by Rio, and existed for at least two years), they did it with the iPhone (where market existed for almost a decade, and went through many generations — remember Windows CE / Pocket PC, Windows Mobile?), and they did it with the iPad (where market was dominated by Microsoft, and existed for almost a decade).

              But in the end, yes, we shall see.You may have your reasons to be skeptical, but in my opinion, they are feeble. It seems that Apple has a rather consistent track record of going for a new market (for them) where existing players already have (at least) a beach head, and then profoundly re-defining it. If we were to quantify the likelihood based on the available information, objective assessment would be 90-10 that Apple Watch would succeed.

    1. I keep hearing about Apple’s slow movement into large smartphone displays, but yet if you look at overall smartphone sales on a global basis, the majority of users do not own over-sized smartphones. In my opinion, I think Apple only missed a relatively small percentage of users. Apple was never doing that badly in iPhone sales. Apple simply didn’t have enough smartphones at lower price points than rivals. It has never been Apple’s goal to own highest market share and I hope it never will be even from my own perspective as a shareholder.

  1. Agreed with above poster- Cramer is a clown who pimped the market right into the market crash of 2007-8.

    Have owned Apple stock for quite a while now and sold some during the huge run up in price (when it was above $400/share I cashed out enough to reward myself with a nice new car with stock I bought for a pittance in 2001) but have otherwise held. Have not bought since it was about the low-mid $300s/share but plan to hold on to what I have.

  2. Let me tell you a little AAPL story… In Jan 2009 I was sitting at the kitchen table going through the mail. There were 3 loan offers from credit card companies at 0% for 12 months. Totaled $50,000. I cashed in on all of them and bought AAPL, from $89/sh to $109/sh. One year later I sold enough to pay VISA back, pay taxes on the gains, and kept 200 shares. Free & clear. You could say I kept the faith.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.