Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Carltun - you don't seem to understand the reality that is Apple and Steve Jobs. MS and Ford are successful because of their products. Apple is successful because Jobs has managed to create and feed a cult like following who will buy overpriced products that consistently fail to perform as well as the competition.
Steve Jobs IS Apple. Personally, I believe the company could be better off without him, but since your moderators here on iCensor are afraid of factual and objective posts I'm unable to go into that for at least another day if I don't elaborate here, and I'm not going to do it tonight.
Apple is a great company, but their technology has very little to do with it. They desperately need Steve Jobs. I wish him all the best.
We all know how well that worked for the Mac. After more than 25 years, the Mac enjoys less than 4% global market share.
Dslarsen – I’m not sure I see the relevance of comparing Apple to MS in this case, perhaps aside from the fact that Apple wouldn’t be in business without MS, but some people expect more from “great” companies than merely shiny toys. Apple had perhaps the best business opportunity in modern (or any?) history, and Steve Jobs failed to capitalize on it. You people worship the clown. He continues to believe Apple products are so superior to all else that he doesn’t mind lying to the masses, including his own loyal customers. The company has billions of dollars in cash in addition to HUGE equities elsewhere thanks to exceptional marketing and hype to those gullible and shallow enough to fall for it, yet he (Jobs) refuses to even give anything back to the community via philanthropic efforts (he actually cut all corporate charitable programs when he returned to the company after being fired before). His employees detest him and Apple vendors/suppliers feel the same. Conditions within at least one of their primary manufacturing vendors are so deplorable that the company has issued memos asking that workers not commit suicide! Sadly, many have failed to comply. Apple continues to use them.
Microsoft is far from perfect, but since you made the comparison, MS is more ethical and gives more back to the community and world every hour than Apple has done during the past 30 years. Some of us value that more than overpriced shiny toys that may or may not work as advertised.
Criticizing Microsoft has nothing to do with it. MS can’t be blamed for Apple’s shortcomings.
Microsoft didn’t perfect monopoly power. Microsoft’s success is due to their superior business model. Apple had a chance to do the same, but Steve Jobs screwed up. If Apple had been smart enough to license their IP, Apple would probably enjoy the 90% market share MS has today. iDiots can try to spin it any way they want, but it won’t change the facts.
When you consider how many of the worlds computers are running Microsoft software, the percentage is well into the 90s. Too bad Apple can’t “fail” as successfully.
I can’t believe you posted that!
"So let it be noted that as of today:
AAPL stood at $256.88 a share
MSFT at $25.80."
What good are current prices without including the number of outstanding shares and growth to date?
Apple has just under 910M shares outstanding. MS has 8.76 billion.
$20,000 invested in AAPL at the IPO would be worth just over $1.8M.
That same $20,000 invested in MSFT at their IPO would yield more than $7MILLION today, PLUS DIVIDENDS of more than $1.57MILLION! In short, $20K invested in Apple at the IPO would yield $1.8M today, compared to more than $8.5M in MSFT.
Laize is perhaps the only objective person posting here, and probably among the very few investors, as well. Your response is laughable.
JR - I'm limited to one public post per day here on iCensor. Something about moderators fearing facts or something.
Personally, I think Apple would benefit as a company without Jobs, but since so much of the charm of the company is a direct result of his public persona, I'm confident the stock would take a serious hit, even if only temporarily. In short, he's a much better marketer than businessman. He's great at marketing, but his ego is bigger than his brain.
Congratulations Heywood! It's hard to keep from selling after such great gains. If you had invested that same $15K in MSFT at the IPO it would be worth $5.3M today. To be fair, MSFT has done nothing during the past ten years although they do pay dividends. Apple is currently on a great run. Timing is everything.
You’re the one who can’t handle facts.
"America's third-largest company by stock market value"
A selective omission perhaps?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/
Looks like #56 if you really care about facts or accuracy.
Nice try, though. Look at the bright side: 56 isn’t bad for a toy company.
Nice try BlogSnot. We both know that you have limited me to one public post per day here on iCensor. If you had any interest in rational debate, you wouldn’t block people from doing so. As for my response to dslarsen, he already posted it (since I had to reply via PM). Now he is claiming that Apple is the third largest publicly traded company in America. I asked him (via PM, of course) to back that one up, but he has failed to do so (DUH). And you call ME clueless? This board doesn’t need me to provide insight. That could be accomplished with a bag of hammers. You’re right about one thing though. I do know much about Apple and Microsoft, and I didn’t learn it from a bunch of clueless idiots on message boards.
You're joking, right?
It becomes a sale when funds are committed. Shipments began in April.
Great article, thanks for posting. I haven’t heard some of those names in years.
My point on the subject remains that even though Sculley was at the helm for the Mac OS issues in question, he was following suit by not licensing Apple IP; a precedent set by Jobs and still exists today whenever possible. Whether Jobs, Sculley, Woz, or whomever, the problem was not a bad contract, but rather a bad business model. Most companies are reluctant to invest in single source solutions, particularly something as complex and expensive as IT. If Apple were to go out of business, suddenly change course, decide to hold their installed base for ransom, or whatever, companies would have to scrap a huge portion of their IT investment and go elsewhere. With Windows, if you don’t like HP you can buy from Dell, Lenovo, or countless others. If Microsoft were to change course, or any of the other examples I suggested for Apple, the same could be true, but what could possibly motivate MS to jeopardize their 90% market share? It simply isn’t going to happen and every CIO, CFO, and CEO knows it.
I didn’t bring up a contract. Dslarsen did. I posted that Microsoft’s success was not the result of a contract. The reason MS defeated Apple in the computer business is because Steve Jobs refused to license Apple IP to other companies. Had he done so, Apple may have dominated the market, exactly as MS did/does.
dslarsen - Thank you for taking the time to respond so comprehensively. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to do the same. You and I obviously have different values (charity, for example). Also, it's clear that I know more facts on the matter than you appear to know. That's not intended to be an insult; merely a result of my career working with Apple and Microsoft.
I find it interesting that you believe MS defeated (my paraphrase) Apple as a result of a poorly written contract. For starters, if Jobs is so great, why would he have signed it? More importantly, there was no poorly written contract. Jobs simply had an inferior business model. If he would have licensed his IP to multiple OEMs, he could have created critical mass, exactly as MS did. Jobs couldn't figure that out and MS did. That's the reason MS won the war. Do I see Apple going out of business? Not likely, although they were on the verge before MS bailed them out. The primary reason Apple is still in business is because they keep throwing pasta at the ceiling until something sticks. If they were still just "Apple Computer", they may be out of business by now, although MS would have done everything possible to prevent it again.
I know a number of Apple employees, many of whom used to work with me. These aren't Apple Store employees or low level people. They're people who are quite high in the company. Jobs doesn't pay people to think. He pays them to do what he tells them to do. That's exactly how he treats his customers.
I'm glad you're making money and you like the company. It's a great holding to have in a portfolio at the moment.
Take your best shot dslarsen. If you treat me with civility I’ll respond accordingly. If not, so be it. Ironically, I’ll be censored here, but iDiots aren’t. It’s all part of why so many laugh at the iDiots.
The reason they censor me is because no one can refute my posts. They'd obviously remove the censor if this were not the case.
I differentiate between good products/company and good investments. Apple would obviously have been a good investment during recent months. Apple also makes some good products, but they're nowhere near that which most iDiots believe they are. I also think Steve Jobs is an idiot. He had a better mousetrap in the beginning but was arrogant enough to believe the market would beat a path to Cupertino to buy it. That turned out to be perhaps the biggest brain fart in the history of business. His own BOD forced him out of the company. He is hated by his employees. When he returned to Apple as CEO he eliminated all corporate philanthropic programs and even today as the company has become wildly profitable, they have not been reinstated. You people worship the guy. My expectations are higher.
I sincerely doubt there is anything in this post to justify an objective TOS violation, but considering this forum I won’t be surprised if it’s deleted. If you and others have the maturity to engage in intelligent discussions let’s do it, but it would be a first for this forum.
I responded via PM because the iCensor admin limits anyone who questions Apple to one public post per day. Pretty childish if you ask me.
Whether fortunate or not, I know much more about Apple, their strategies, and inner workings than most. I have very little respect for the company, aside from their ability to create almost a cult following of people who overpay for their shiny toys. It's obviously impossible to dispute their recent stock performance, but I still fail to see the value in most of their products. Too bad, as they had great promise in the beginning.
It's sure easy to see why you didn't support that absurd claim with a link to the source.
I don’t dispute the value of evaluating a new product. I simply don’t see the value of the iPad the way some seem to. It will undoubtedly sell well to those who believe in all things Apple, but it doesn’t appear to offer much for the money. What is the value prop? It’s either a large iPhone or a crippled laptop. What does it do that can’t be done with a far less expensive netbook or e-reader? I’d never buy an iPhoney for a number of reasons, but it’s hard to dispute its value to some. Similarly, the Mac for those with limited needs. I may be wrong, but the iPad seems to be Apple’s attempt to force a product into a market segment that doesn’t exist. Time will tell.
That seems like an absurd argument. Google and HTC combined have only a fraction of the number of product offerings Apple has.
APPLE’S TRADEMARKS GENERIC TERM(S)
AirMac® wireless hardware/software solution
AirPort® wireless hardware/software solution
AirPort Express® wireless hardware/software solution
AirPort Extreme® wireless hardware/software solution
AirTunes™ application program
A.Pack® software feature
Aperture™ application program
Apple® computers, computer software, computer peripherals, etc.
Apple logo®
Apple IIGS™ computer
AppleCAT® application program
AppleCD SC® CD-ROM drive
Apple Cinema Display® computer monitor
AppleFund™ reimbursement program
AppleLink™ communication network/computer software
Apple Media Series™ training materials
Apple Remote Desktop™ remote desktop software
AppleScript® application program
AppleScript Studio® development software
AppleShare® server software
Apple Studio Display™ computer monitor
AppleTalk® network system
Apple TechStep™ diagnostic software
Apple TV® digital media extender
AppleVision™ computer display
AppleWorks® application program
Aqua® user interface
Audio Units logo™
Back to My Mac® software feature
Bonjour® networking technology
Bonjour logo®
Boot Camp® application program
Capitals® computer font
Carbon® software technology
Charcoal® computer font
Chicago® computer font
Cinema Tools™ application program
Claris® software
Cocoa® software technology
Cocoa Touch™ software technology
ColorSync® application program
ColorSync logo®
Cover Flow® application program
Dashcode® developer software
DVD@CCESS™ software feature
DVD Studio Pro® application program
Educator Advantage™ marketing program
EdView® Web portal
eMac® computer
Encyclomedia® CD-ROM bundle
Enterprise Objects™ computer software
Enterprise Objects Framework™ computer software
EtherTalk® interface card/network
Exposé® computer software
Extensions Manager™ system software
FairPlay® software technology
FileVault® application program
Final Cut® application program
Final Cut Pro® application program
Final Cut Studio® application program
Finder™ operating system software
FireWire® serial bus
FireWire compliance logo™
FireWire logo™
FireWire symbol®
FontSync® application program
Gadget™ computer font
GarageBand® application program
Geneva® computer font
HyperCard® application program
HyperTalk® application program
iBook® computer
iCal® application program
iChat® application program
iDVD® application program
iLife® suite of application programs
iMac® computer
ImageWriter® printer
iMovie® application program
Inkwell® application program
Instruments® developer software
Inter·Poll® application program
iPad™ mobile digital device
iPhone® mobile digital device
iPhoto® application program
iPod® mobile digital device
iPod classic® mobile digital device
iPod Hi-Fi® speakers
iPod nano® mobile digital device
iPod shuffle® mobile digital device
iPod Socks® holder for computer hardware and consumer electronics
iPod touch® mobile digital device
iSight® camera
iTunes® application program
iTunes Logo® application program
iTunes Pass® online store
iWeb™ application program
iWork® suite of application programs
Jam Pack® computer software
Keychain® operating system feature
Keynote® application program
LaserWriter™ printer
Leopard® operating system software
LiveType® application program
LocalTalk® computer cable system/network
Logic® application program
Logic Studio® application program
Mac® computer
Mac logo®
MacApp® application program
MacBook® computer
MacBook Air® computer
MacDNS® application program
Macintosh® computer
Macintosh Products Guide® online catalog
Mac OS® operating system software
MacPAD™ application program
MacTCP® application program
MacTest™ application program
Made for iPod logo®
MagSafe® power adapters
MainStage® application program
Monaco® computer font
MPW® application program
Multi-Touch™ touchscreen interface
NetInfo™ computer software
Newton™ operating system software
New York® computer font
Numbers® application program
Objective-C® computer software
OfflineRT™ software feature
Open Directory logo™
OpenCL™ software technology
OpenPlay® application program
Pages® application program
Panther® operating system software
Photo Booth® application program
Photocasting™ digital content delivery service
Pixlet® compression application program
Podcast Logo® application feature
PowerBook® computer
Power Mac® computer
ProDOS™ operating system software
Quartz® graphics and display technology
QuickDraw® application program
QuickTime® application program
QuickTime Broadcaster™ application program
QuickTime logo®
QuickTime TV™ Internet broadcast network
Rosetta® application program
SADE® application program
Safari® application program
Sand® computer font
ScanTest® application program
Shake® application program
Sherlock® application program
Shuffle™ mobile digital device
Skia™ computer font
SnapBack™ application feature
Snow Leopard® operating system software
Soundtrack® application program
Spaces® operating system feature
Spotlight® software utility
StyleWriter™ printer
SuperDrive® computer media device
Techno™ computer font
Textile® computer font
Think different® slogan
Tiger® computer operating system software
Time Capsule® wireless hard drive/Wi-Fi base station
Time Machine® application program
TokenTalk® application program
TrueType® font technology
Tubes® cases for computer hardware and consumer electronics
Ultrabeat® software feature
Velocity Engine® vector processing unit
WaveBurner® application program
WebObjects® software
WebScript™ computer software
Works with iMovie logo™
Works with iPhone logo™
Xcode® developer software
Xgrid® application program
Xsan® application program
Xserve® server
"Consistently under-promising and over-delivering."
Well they sure nailed the "under-promising" part.
Kindle was never intended to be used on a postage stamp sized screen. Only an iDiot would believe differently, but remember that if Apple introduces an Apple Kindle/Tablet this week.
Dslarsen - Your last sentence speaks volumes and confirms my point perfectly. Operating System market share for the Mac is currently slightly above 5%. The OS share for the iPhoney is less than half of one percent. If you honestly believe that 5.55% of anything is the “Big world” it’s obvious that you’re way out of touch with reality.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8#
Also, people don’t choose non-Apple products because they’re not “lucky”. They choose different products because that’s what they prefer.
I’m not suggesting that Apple products are without merit, but to make such absurd claims makes it difficult to take anything you post seriously.
There's a serious flaw in your reasoning. You posted that "iTunes is what most folks use to sync their calendar and mail and music and podcasts and App Store apps and iTunesU lessons etc etc etc to their iPhones."
The flaw is that "Most folks" don't use those products, nor do "most folks" have iPhones. There's a really big world outside of the Apple community.
I won't be posting again today as the Board Secretary has limited me to one factual post per day. Sorry.
What a coincidence!
Apple stupidly rejects Tweetie 1.3 for foul language in Twitter trends
By Nilay Patel posted Mar 10th 2009 3:22PM
Apple's just reached a whole new level of stupidity in App Store approval shenanigans: the Tweetie 1.3 update was just rejected for displaying "offensive language" in its Twitter trend search view.
Right, not for offensive language in the app itself, but for offensive language on Twitter -- an insanely strict new standard that could conceivably be used to reject each and every iPhone Twitter client out there. (And if you haven't noticed, there are quite a few iPhone Twitter clients.) Hell, Apple might as well reject the next versions of Safari and Mail, since they can display dirty words too -- and let's not forget the awful things people are doing with Notes and the camera. Better lock it down.
Look, Apple -- this is a nadir. Rejecting a Twitter client for Twitter's content is simply indefensible, and it's a sign that the App Store approval "process" is broken beyond repair. It's time to drop the seemingly-random black-box approach -- which has earned nothing but well-deserved scorn -- open up, establish consistent, easy-to-understand rules with a well-defined appeals process, and actually work with innovative developers like Tweetie's Loren Brichter to push your platform forward in the face of newly-stiff competition. The massive popularity of the iPhone and the App Store may prevent a mass exodus, but the best devs are going to leave if they feel jerked around, and we doubt a store full of fart apps and misogynistic jiggle apps is really the vision you had for your platform. Think about it.
Thanks to Ace for pointing this out!
MS is in a difficult situation. In reality, they accomplished their goal long ago (“A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software”). That has always been the goal of the company and they succeeded years ago. They set a precedent of huge profits for investors and did so in a very visible way. To some extent, the MS share price is representative of the company’s market share. While they’re well off their all time high, they have been largely stagnant for a number of years. It’s pretty hard to grow when you have saturated the market. Still, investors expect at least a competitive ROI. MS has always been about offering products that expand or compliment their core business which is enterprise and consumer software. That’s an area where MS differs from Apple. MS accomplished their goal so they haven’t had to abandon their business model and try something else. That’s not the case with Apple. Apple started as a computer company with hopes of achieving critical mass. Unfortunately, the arrogance and greed that motivated them to believe their products were so superior that customers would line up to buy them proved to be almost fatal. Apple shifted their focus to a completely new market with the iPod where they finally dominated and experienced the benefit of sex appeal. Once successful with the portable music market their situation became similar to MS in that they had achieved market domination. I have no idea when they began to consider the smartphone, but they had to realize at some point that a robust phone with significant data storage could replace the need for a dedicated portable music player. Regardless of reason or timing, Apple now appears to have modified their model yet again into a company that offers more fashion than function. That’s not to say their products are without function, but anyone who is truly objective will acknowledge that we can buy greater functionality elsewhere for a lower price.
So, what about Microsoft? Vista notwithstanding, I don’t think they’re doing a particularly poor job but I wouldn’t be buying their stock. When Vista was released I was critical because I would like to have seen them improve upon XP instead. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make as much money as a new OS. W7 seems to be everything Vista wasn’t, but in the end, MS has still accomplished their goal. Exponential growth can’t last forever.
MS doesn't care. They don't have to.
I consider the MS Stores to be a waste of time, but if anyone is naive enough to believe the success (or lack thereof) of the MS Stores has much significance in the big picture, than they must be an iDiot.
Is there an app for that?
I don’t know if Korean cops have mobile radar, but there are many stationary sites with permanent photo radar installations. Most Korean GPS and/or cell phone GPS apps know where they are. It’s really wild the first time you visit if you’re fortunate enough to get a fast limo/taxi driver cruising at 200K and mashes the brakes just as he reaches the radar. Of course they know where the units are, but I think they like to do it for entertainment (tips aren’t customary in Korea).
The iPhoney may be the last to offer turn by turn directions, but tracking radar locations would be very important in that market.
I refer to all Mac Operating Systems as OSuX. It seems so much easier than trying to keep track since Apple seems to rename with every version release.
The point of my post was that if Jobs had licensed the IP to other companies rather than insisting upon keeping it proprietary, the Mac OS would likely dominate the market today. Even objective Apple critics will admit that Apple had a better UI than MS in the old days. MS won the war by making better business decisions.
BTW, this will be my only post for at least 24 hours. Your secretary has me limited to one per day.
"offering the iphone to all networks and make money off all of them"
If Steve Jobs was that smart he would have done that with the Mac and OSuX and they would probably dominate the personal computing markets. Unfortunately, you can blame his greed for failing to do so.
I’ll interpret that to mean you’re more interested in confrontation than discussion, rather than an “exchange of ideas” as you requested. I don’t know Sinclap, but if his posts are any indication he’s pretty bright. One of the many amusing elements of the whole Apple vs. Everyone Else debate is that Everyone Else is usually rational and can support their claims and assertions. iDiots, on the other hand can’t. Personally, I don’t have to convince anyone of anything. I buy what I want, as does the overwhelming majority of the world. I just find it amusing to watch the Apple disciples dream of grandeur.
Hey Wood, weren’t you the one asking for an exchange of ideas?
I initiated it, and your response was “Where we=moron+sinclap,
Consult sinclap's link for context.”
Brilliant.
Perhaps I should ask the same question differently: Do YOU know the context of Ballmers comment?
Do we know the context of Ballmers comment? If the purpose was to announce sales during the first ten days then supporting numbers would seem to be in order, but if he was merely stating that sales have been good while on an unrelated topic it wouldn't seem necessary.
Hey Bigbiz – You forgot to mention that PWNX performed their FIFTY to ONE Reverse Split (3/22/06) and the split adjusted price was $2.45. Compare that to today’s $1.30, and it’s not very impressive, wouldn’t you agree?
As usual, it helps to disclose the facts. That is, of course, unless you're trying to mislead anyone........ AGAIN
I think there is probably a very good reason it trades at two cents per share. I don't invest in penny stocks. SEVU was my first (and probably last). The first time I bought SEVU was because I thought they had potential to do something and the shares were only about fifty cents. As we all know, the company turned out to be a joke.
I now stick to the big board. I may not realize exponential gains, but I'm not worried about losing my real estate, either.
As I said before, some people deserve their losses.
You have been saying that for six years, and you have been wrong every time. SEVU/PWLX/PWNX has been trying for twenty years, and has yet to even come close! What makes you think it's any different today? Don't you think it would be smarter to admit that you were wrong, like the rest of us did?
Expensive thrills!
Some people deserve their losses.
At risk of believing you would be willing to rationally debate anything about this company for the first time in more than six years, why would anyone want to invest in them? They have been in business for twenty years, during which time they have repeatedly deceived investors and failed to make any money. Throughout that time, you have claimed to believe their promises and virtually ALL of them have proven to either fail or been flat out fraudulent! PWNX continues to make promises and have yet to demonstrate even a single meaningful sale of anything but company stock (which further dilutes the already worthless shares).
This company would represent a HUGE risk even if they were the only place to put your money, but with so many other investment opportunities available, why would anyone consider making an open market investment in PWNX?
Actually Biz, I copied that from this weeks filing. That may explain the statement "The requested relief was approved by the Court on August 7, 2006."
Regardless, with legal problems such as those, it's hard to imagine why anyone with a brain would still endorse this pig.
Do your parents have any more condos you can lose before you admit that you were wrong?
I wonder why these clowns didn't issue a PR to announce their latest round of "Earnings"?
The following exerpt from the latest filing is very telling.....
The requested relief was approved by the Court on August 7, 2006.
The Complaint alleged that in September 2004, the Company violated the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing materially
misleading press releases and filing materially misleading reports with the
SEC concerning a purported $23 million sales contract with a defense
contractor known as Universal General Corporation ("UGC"), which, in fact,
had no revenues, no assets, and no means to satisfy any portion of its $23
million contractual obligation to the Company. According to the Complaint,
the Company performed virtually no due diligence to determine whether UGC
was legitimate and could meet its contractual obligations. The Complaint
states that Mr. Bernardich was responsible for the Company's due diligence
failures and for drafting the Company's materially misleading press
releases and SEC filings. The Complaint also alleges that during the first
three quarters of fiscal year 2000, the Company fraudulently recognized
nearly ninety percent of its reported revenues based on fictitious camera
sales by initiating consignment arrangements with numerous dealers and
recording the consignment order amounts as revenue before any cameras were
manufactured, shipped to the dealers, or sold to customers. The Complaint
alleges that during this same period, the Company also issued numerous
deceptive press releases that materially misrepresented the company's
operations and offered glowing, but unsubstantiated, revenue and earnings
forecasts. The Complaint also alleges that in April 2001, following a
management change, the Company filed with the SEC an annual report for 2000
containing a misleading restatement of revenues and other materially
misleading disclosures and accounting errors. According to the Complaint,
the principal architect of the Company's fraudulent activities during 2000
was its now-deceased former chief executive officer, Richard L. McBride.
According to the Complaint, among other things, the Company failed to
disclose in violation of applicable SEC regulations that Mr. McBride had
been convicted of fraud in 1998 and was serving a six-year probation term.
The Complaint also alleges that Mr. Cox was responsible for certain of the
Company's fraud and reporting violations and Mr. Bernardich, who had
replaced Mr. McBride as chief executive officer in February 2001, aided and
abetted the Company's reporting violations with respect to the Company's
2000 annual report.
In addition, the Company's current chief financial officer, Douglas Bauer,
has consented to the issuance of a cease-and-desist order for his role in
causing the Company's reporting violation in connection with its April 2002
restatement of a deferred tax asset. Mr. Bauer consented to the issuance of
the order without admitting or denying the findings in the Order.
All I have heard is that they finally fired some gullible clown they used to bribe to post meaningless BS on message boards in hopes of magically making a believer out of anyone desperate enough to believe that PWLX had a chance of selling more than stock. Word is that they couldn't afford to pay that clown because the stock is worthless as well. Personally, I think they just wanted to get rid of the guy.
Aside from that, PWLX seems to be maintaining status quo, which explains the share price and (lack of) earnings.
Da Real PeterLynch
By accepting the User Agreement, you warrant that you have no other registration(s) with iHub. You also agree to maintain only one active registration with iHub. Failure to follow the User Agreement will result in your immediate termination from iHub.