Baker is saying that artificial share price increases are not sustainable. A company can't rely on it's share going up every time a new product is introduced. He and other analysts have probably seen it happen with other companies (and that's why he says "haven't tended," he's implying that this is a trend he has seen before). What exactly about that do you have such a problem with, and what do periodic upgrades and new releases have to do with this unsustainable trend Baker is pointing out?

If you think that Baker is maliciously attacking Apple, then think again. He's shedding light on a trend.

If you're saying the stock price can't go to infinity then yes, I agree. Analysts have an awful track record with Apple, truly, amazingly, awful. And suggesting their stock is doing so well because of product updates, but then saying that's not sustainable is idiotic. The stock is doing well because they're making a shit ton of profit during a recession and have nearly $40 billion in cash in the bank with $0 debt.

OK, I understand what you're saying a lot better now. I interpreted Baker's remark meaning that a sudden growth around every release/update is not sustainable and that Apple's stock will, at some point, have to just grow over time independent of those boosts.

Baker says that the relentless release of new products and the "heat" those generate are the reason for a company's growth, but at some point that heat will diminish and they will need to grow like a normal company (without the help of the "cool factor"). Xerox's stock doesn't jump every time they put out a new model of copier or send out firmware updates. And that's because people don't follow their every move religiously. Their stock continues to grow regardless of that kind of feral attention that Apple garners.

Baker's "in the long term" comment essentially means that, one day, Apple will run out of steam but that doesn't mean he's saying their stock won't continue to grow.

That's my interpretation of his remarks, anyway.