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.
re voip
I wasn't paying attention to the apps that were pulled to ascertain whether they were trying to use EDGE, or were just using VoIP on local wireless networks. Sloppy apps that try VoIP over the cellular data connection might account for all the pulled apps; I haven't checked. (I note that your post mentions the EDGE network, but the new 3G network may raise bandwidth-hog issues for VoIP apps that don't sniff for non-cellular connections before hitting the network ... and Jobs' comments on EDGE might not protect a VoIP app that for some reason is a particular bandwidth hog ...)
Someone posted that the AT&T subscriber agreement raised an issue even for tethered IP phone use, but I haven't looked into that, either.
I agree Jobs explicitly OK'd VoIP apps, but I'm also aware Jobs instructed subordinates to breach warranty contracts that were bleeding the company. I'll readily believe Apple would interfere with apps with plausible violation of a carrier agreement, regardless what Apple says is OK on its platform generally, because I think Apple needs carriers and high-dollar carrier agreements in the most desperate way if it's to make the best money that can be made on the phones.
Selling the phones for $600 or so isn't anything like being able to sell them "for $199" bundled with service users were expecting to buy anyway. Well, with service they were mostly expecting to buy anyway ... but for the iPhone I'd never have shelled out $20/mo for data. The fact new users aren't getting SMS with their package is kinda surprising. Gotta find someplace to milk 'em, eh?
I suppose once I get a connection set up in my new digs (Comcast won't set it up now because it thinks someone else lives here, and they won't "involuntarily disconnect" the fool, who certainly hasn't been paying any utility bills for months here as he's been gone), I can look into this kind of thing.
Take care,
--Tex.
iPhone VoIP apps
I think these have been launched, but Apple's interest in keeping folks from violating the TOS with users' carriers seems to have resulted in their being pulled. Didn't we have a story about this a little while ago?
Enterprises releasing apps to employees using Apple's mechanism for companies to issue in-house apps could presumably circumnavigate this. Freeware open-source versions for folks who want to install the app on their own phone from their computer by compiling it themselves as a developer might pull it off (I don't know whether you need a certificate to deploy on your own, I seem to recall maybe using the hardware requires a certificate).
Basically, I think Apple is avoiding letting the floodgates open on this. Apple, after all, still needs to line up carrier partners -- Russia, China ...
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/iphone-stalled-n-route-to-china.html
Take care,
--Tex.
Is the HSBC deal all about the hardware, or is it a platform endorsement that could lead to bigger things? Even if the intent is merely to switch phones, the fact Cocoa enables single-app/numerous localizations will probably benefit HSBC in a global rollout.
Assuming the platform advantage is noted, and HSBC actually develops some in-house apps on it so it can appreciate what the platform offers, Apple could have a big door opened for it:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/apple-international-appeal-paying-off.html
Yes, selling 200k units is cool, but capturing the minds of HSBC IT is even bigger.
Take care,
--Tex.
Policing the platform
Apple has apparently gotten swept into enforcing third parties' contracts, and will surely be targeted by the sort of rage ordinarily directed at Half.com for staying out of Microsoft's legal cross-hairs by pulling applications that might not be resalable under MSFT's EULA.
On the other hand, demand by third parties onto the platform should put Apple into the position to negotiate another round of deals with partners to accommodate net hog software:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/iphone-platform.html
As more developers demand access to bring different apps to the platform, the motive to contract in favor of everyone's approval increases. Maybe developers and carriers could end up -- in the case of a net-heavy application -- with some kind of revenue agreement based on use. In the case of an app whose use is related to the developer's revenue (social apps might do this), I think it's particularly plausible.
Meanwhile, MSFT has reportedly turned to buying content to put on its players.
http://www.ipodnn.com/articles/08/08/11/zune.to.get.unique.content/
Take care,
--Tex.
re Amazon mp3s
I bought my wife an MP3 from Amazon, when (a) she really did not want the whole album, so there was no advantage to buying on Half.com or another used disc site, (b) I had no idea where she might end up wanting to play the song, so AAC/DRM wasn't an exciting alternative, (c) Apple didn't offer a DRM-free high-fi AAC version of the track at any price, and (d) 256bps MP3 stood a reasonable chance of having better sound quality than 128bps AAC.
It runs fine, and won't refuse to play the next time Apple has to replace my motherboard again.
But let's be honest: installing Amazon's downloader app is a bit over the top, isn't it?
<grin>
Take care,
--Tex.
AAPL dismantles booby trap
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/apple-erases-booby-trap-app.html
The crazy thing is that (a) there was more than one of these buyers, (b) the developer is acting like the injured party, and (c) there are people criticizing Apple for removing the app.
At least someone is watching this. If people will depend on Apple to detect scam apps, it's good to see Apple working to prevent heartache and mischief. A booby trap like a $1000 single-image viewer hasn't got a legitimate place in a reasonable market.
Take care,
--Tex.
re blacklists
Aside from the fact this particular blacklist seems to be set to deny CoreLocation to certain applications (well, if the list weren't empty), it's also sensible that if Apple is advertising itself as offering protection from rogue programs, that Apple should have a mechanism to, you know ... offer protection if it spots a rogue program.
Silly that this is news, eh?
On the other hand, as you point out in your other post, Microsoft offers rogue programs pre-installed ....
Take care,
--Tex.
Ecosystem. Check. em.
iPhone exit barriers
The point that software investments create a moat (in this case, keeping customers in á la Win32 rather than keeping upstart competitors out á la deepwater petroleum exploration) is workable only if (a) the applications people continue to use are not in fact freely available on competitive platforms, and (b) the paid applications aren't basically toys of which people grow bored.
Maybe sudoku is addictive enough that buying it keeps you invested in it, and (b) won't work for it. However, how long exactly do you expect a user to play Super Monkey Ball after mastering every level? Maybe they will want to keep it so they don't lose their high score ....
On the other hand, applications like ePocrates are free downloads wherever they exist. Sure, you need a username and password -- ePocrates keeps the keys, and you can't use the free downloads without good IDs -- but the app itself doesn't have any barrier to being replaced on another handset.
There is certainly a possibility that iPhone software -- or music -- could foster lock-in, but I'm not convinced this is a sure thing. I think the better possibility is that Apple's development environment is such that developers, given a choice, will build for iPhone. I don't think Apple's current pricing creates a barrier to the customers paid-app developers want to chase with commercial smartphone applications. Thus, I think application quality and diversity will create the lock-in (if any) rather than investment in specific applications.
You know how folks complain here that Windows games get all the love and care in optimization and tweaking so they're faster? If Apple controls the platform with the mindshare among developers and the sales among users, it'll have the platform with the developers' love and attention. Ideas like focusing a major OS release on performance-related technology (massive parallelization, GP-GPU support, etc.) suggest Apple wants to build a dream platform to achieve this very kind of thing. Apple is marketing to developers, so developers will make the platform more able to market to the masses.
And yes, I think that down the road Apple really will try for the masses. The economics of hardware suggest that's where the future is, and Apple benefits from being able to offer both hardware and software upgrades -- and now, thanks to the growing App Store, upgrades of third parties' software.
The hardware is being commoditized, and though Apple might be able to continue distinguishing itself with industrial design, the per-unit profit will decrease as overall costs of components decrease even if margins remain high. Sure, this trend has been in the works for decades and it won't end box profits any time soon, but Apple may be looking out at the distant future here.
Of course, software engineers have been very obliging in making applications whose demands grow over time, so that even newer hardware is barely sufficient to the tasks set before them. Rather than computing power getting cheaper, it's also very likely that in some very common classes of machines the power will instead get greater at similar prices (e.g., handheld computers are cheaper, but maybe notebook computers will remain in demand with high performance until there is no discrepancy with desktop hardware or beyond, and of course that day may never come given growing performance requirements of software).
Interesting stuff.
Take care,
--Tex.
gPhone
Here, I thought Android was going to be delivered on the hardware of various handset vendors, rather than being a physical product sold by Google. Instead of creating a platform on which everyone will be able to leverage Google's online services, Google as a manufacturer would set itself up as a competitor to handset vendors and raise barriers to broad user access to Google services.
Oops?
Take care,
--Tex.
re home run
And why is it likely to be any more of a home run than Vista was?
Win95 was a home run largely because folks were so ill of Win 3.1. The fact it was a resource pig and buggy wasn't a problem, given that (a) it was less bad and (b) developers had a whole slew of win95-only apps.
MSFT may not be able to pull off much of a Windows-7-only-application avalanche as it did when it rolled out Win32, but if existing disappointment continues, any alternative will look good -- particularly if MSFT is able to achieve performance advantages. MSFT's engineers are smart cookies, and I don't doubt it's possible.
By firing the right idiots, it's also theoretically possible it could ship in the next several years, but ... let's not descend to crazy talk, eh?
The fact that MSFT sees there's problems to fix doesn't mean MSFT will have the wherewithal to fix them:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/06/knowing-path-isnt-walking-path.html
Still, MSFT has too many smart folks to count them all out. I guess while Ballmer is CEO it doesn't matter how smart folks are at MSFT, but ....
Take care,
--Tex.
OT re junk yields
The NAV is over $27. At this price, it's a value play whose dividend offers insurance against slow price performance. It's a stock that's been on the SEC's list of persistent failure to deliver, indicating solid naked short interest. The cash flow and deal flow are consistent, and the company is required by its tax status to pay dividends over 90% of its taxable income. So long as the income stays up, the dividend must stay up. And since management views the dividend as a scorecard, the dividend will probably stay up so long as cash flow makes it sensible. And there's great cash flow.
ACAS has a strong track record of pricing its holdings properly in its valuation reports. It's not only exited the last 11 companies -- a billion in exits -- within 1% of last-stated values (a little over), but has repeatedly sold fractional stakes in a cross-section of its whole holdings to funds for management at prices in line with its stated values, so the integrity of the whole portfolio has been tested by the acid test of pricing in arms-length transactions.
Solid operating income from portfolio companies and growing fees from funds under management, gives ACAS a steady and growing base income. ACAS' income from exits may be "lumpier" but it's also consistent. In a given year, the dividend is covered by income -- over the last 5 years, it's covered 120%.
Since going public at $15 in '97, ACAS has paid nearly $30 in dividends, and currently trades over $20. It's current discount to NAV is an anomaly; historically, it trades at an average of 1.4x book.
NAV is $27, including FAS-157 write-downs that take assets below the levels ACAS has proven it can get in real exit transactions.
ACAS is, simply put, underpriced because it is misunderstood. One example:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/07/acas-touted-as-turnaround-story.html
ACAS may not be for you, but I wanted to diversify last year (yeah, bad timing to enter financials), and ACAS' range of portfolio companies is the kind of instant diversification I liked -- while allowing me to get paid for ACAS' due diligence (it collects fees from third parties for funds management) rather than paying fund managers to find good bets.
ACAS has a nice DRIP, too. And steady history of raising the dividend. I wanted to weep over the really bad analysis I'd seen on it:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/06/professional-stock-analyst-opinions.html
I'm always interested in input on why an idea is wrong, but the only thing I can see on ACAS is a story about how it's become mispriced as financials got slaughtered. Most of its income isn't even from financial business, but from the business of portfolio companies. What gives?
Please let me know if you see anything interesting.
Take care,
--Tex.
re flop
Not in the sense that it had no sales -- EOLing XP certainly led to sales on new machines -- but the reviews have been poor and disinterest in Vista has re-appeared as a reason folks considered Linux and other alternatives.
If Vista sucks badly enough, it'll set up MSFT for a huge roaring success with the launch of Windows 7!
Take care,
--Tex.
re Beijing
Ahh, you were thinking that customer shutdowns would impact sales. Could be, if customers are located near Beijing. I was under the impression that the kind of manufacturing AoHong would be supporting with lubricants and the like would be in the cheap real estate in the sticks rather than in the city, or else near AoHong's own facilities rather than in Beijing.
The next quarter will tell, though.
We're due for a CAAH report soon, though.
Take care,
--Tex.
Victims of Apple's Success
Inspired by you, TomM:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/eaten-by-apple.html
It turns out that with a little Googling, one can chase down quite a few companies that are down on Apple for reasons that have little to do with its products or services failing.
Let's hope Apple's services get their stuff together, though, so Apple doesn't embarrass itself too badly for too long, or it'll develop a reputation it'll have a hard time shedding. I've been daydreaming about Apple in the enterprise too long to see Apple botch it with a half-baked services offering.
Take care,
--Tex.
PS Speaking of services, I just had Google host email for me at a domain I own for $50 a year, which is kinda a drag for one user. Other hosting providers also provide web hosting, but have much smaller inboxes and the monthly fees end up higher than GOOG's annual offering. I don't need web applications, I mostly need email for the domain, but I'd sure like to be able to host a page. Anyone got a suggestion?
re calls
I still have the calls whose paper profits vanished when AAPL tanked, so I'm not really partying yet. But the paper losses on the naked puts was sure nice to see evaporating!
Also, if you multiply Apple's recent gains by my bloated share count, I'm not doing too badly when the shares increase in value. I'm interested to see what Apple releases over the next couple of months, and to hear how Apple sells over the period.
The news that Apple had gained in enterprise environments was interesting, and I'd like to hear more about it. I'm wondering whether it's in the hands of the road warriors, or in power users and media departments, or exactly what. The fact that Vista flopped seems to be a big win for Apple -- a win Apple didn't really earn, but got by default as folks cast about for an alternative when MSFT lost customers' confidence.
I think Apple as a platform will come out of this very nicely. The question for me is how quickly, and at what point the gain rate suggests that it's time to hunt elsewhere.
My best idea lately has been ACAS, which just released earnings.
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/acas-serving-fresh-squeezed-short-juice.html
Up over 9% on the day following the conference call, and on a list of stocks with persistent failure-to-deliver problems (evidence of naked shorting). With the dividend apparently safe, the large short population must have some very firm thesis to hold on.
Lat year was the wrong time to decide that, in the interest of conservatism, it was time to diversify into ... heh, heh ... financials. At the moment, ACAS is well under NAV and enjoying positive cash flow, so I'm uninterested in bailing. It's a good DRIP circumstance: I reinvest low!
Take care,
--Tex.
ACAS shorts
I agree there's a ton of shorts in ACAS; the question is whether today's action was returning buyers or unwinding shorts.
Take care,
--Tex.
ACAS pops; short squeeze to follow?
ACAS' +10% turnout today after its earnings announcement is a start. Given that I began buying at 44 or so, I can wait for more upside before being happy, but on the bright side my reinvestment is doing nicely at this price.
There's an argument here that we're not really likely to see serious short-squeeze on ACAS:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/acas-serving-fresh-squeezed-short-juice.html
The idea is that, however solid ACAS is, there's just not enough excitement to lead to the panicked exit you need for a real squeeze: as it's clear the bear thesis is failing, there'll be time for an orderly exit.
Mind you, I'd like to see news that created a short panic. To do that, though ... ACAS would have to deliver something unhinted-at in its release.
Take care,
--Tex.
Beijing plants may close ...
... is there any reason to think AoHong depends on Beijing plants, or plants with smog concerns subject to the closure orders?
I was given to understand AoHong plants were in Shanghai ...
http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activities-management/company-structures-ownership/5266030-1.html
Take care,
--Tex.
nullriver blames automated email systems
Humans could not reach one another at Apple and Nullriver ...?
http://www.nullriver.com/
Entirely unsurprising given MobileMe.
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/bad-apples-in-app-store.html
Apple needs to launch something that doesn't feel like beta, just to show they still can!
Take care,
--Tex.
re valuation
Some things that "get me" about valuation for Apple include:
Apple's cash is basically a wasting asset. Valuations that try to do something with Apple's cash are a puzzlement. The joker is that Apple has occasionally made good investments (multitouch? ARM Holdings? all the Pro apps it bought over the years for video editing, image effects, DVD making ...), and it's hard to guess what Apple might do that could beat inflation. Wasn't there supposed to be an investment vehicle -- Braeburn, or some such -- to employ Apple's cash at some nonzero return? Anyone ever hear what happened with that? Was there anything to that but bong vapor?
Apple's accounting for its new products (aTV, iPhone) artificially depresses the impact of sales in the present quarter, despite that all the revenue appears in the present quarter. Figuring out earnings growth when Apple is working overtime to make earnings growth seem flat as a pancake is kinda mysterious, and involves ignoring reported earnings in favor of calculations based on units and guesses of true per-unit revenues received. I expect uncertainty caused by this accounting practice -- combining subscription and traditional sales accounting in the same business units and refusing to break out performance details, and the like -- to make share pricing more emotional and less rational.
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/08/rationally-pricing-shares-of-apple.html
On the uncertainty caused by hard-to-peg earnings, I think you've hit the nail on the head here: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=31183816
If we assume for a moment that Apple's iPhones do extremely well this year in sales, do we expect valuation to be based on Apple's actual earnings or on the growth of reported earnings? Assuming we predict pricing on the basis of reported earnings (and assuming everyone accepts as reasonable the fiction Apple has built regarding subscription accounting), we accept pricing the shares on the basis of artificially depressed growth in the very business folks are looking to ignite Apple over the next few years.
My personal feeling about Apple's subscription accounting is that it is also intended to make people feel Apple's software isn't a free entitlement, but is an add-on product for which they should be prepared to pay extra. Apple's movement toward selling iLife rather than giving it away, selling iWork rather than bundling AppleWorks, and charging at least a token fee for iPod Touch software upgrades all seem calculated to program the public to view Apple's software as distinct from Apple's hardware and worthy of being paid for separately.
The fact that subscription accounting also kills rational pricing is a serious drag. Volatility will increase as prices become more story-driven and less driven by verifiable profits and/or profit growth. I guess it's a good time to buy LEAPS
I sure hope the next quarter's Mac number rocks. I'm still as long as I was in January.
The next big change in valuation we may see could be end-of-2008 dumping to capture LT gains before the LT rate vanishes. Or have I missed something here that should prevent this from occurring?
Take care,
--Tex.
fraction of a rounding error
Acknowledging that Apple's non-notebook sales are largely iMacs, do we have any further information coloring average desktop pricing? Apple seems to deliberately mix product types in the categories into which it breaks out performance numbers to prevent hard evidence on particular models.
I would think that high-end towers may be a niche product aimed at the folks to which the Pro creation tools are aimed, and that while there may not be that many film studios to supply with equipment, Apple might so dominate the market because of its coordinated application offerings that it may be able to exercise some pricing power.
There may be a reason to offer products to fill the gap you identify, but I wonder -- I don't have conclusion as I haven't got data on it, but I wonder -- whether offering a desktop at a price point overlapping the iMac line, but enabling mix-and-match of monitors, processors, RAM configurations, and numbers of installed drives ... might either (a) just cannibalize Pro sales, (b) just make people feel angry as they try to price mini towers that are feature-compatible with iMacs and find they're more expensive, or (c) both. I kinda think that the iMac crowd (which I joined, buying a G5 iMac I still use but plan replacing later this year) isn't demanding of performance and may not really ise upgrade options extended them.
In my case I'd have preferred internal drives, but Apple still sold me hardware and a series of software upgrades ....
Just what share impact do you think lack of a mini tower creates?
Do you view pro towers as so small in volume that cannibalization of their sales won't matter?
Take care,
--Tex.
PS: I wonder if part of the thinking isn't Apple wanting to make sure its OS is locked down to Apple-only hardware
I hadn't thought much on that angle, but hackintosh types will be working to crack Apple releases, not so much trying to run non-Apple operating systems on them. I think Apple came out publicly with the view that DRM is a loser's game, and Apple is certainly not taking steps to prevent folks from circulating OS install discs to non-paying upgraders with Apple hardware.
What exactly would Apple achieve in protecting IP by going nonstandard?
Fear of Apple
The great fear, of course, is that it will not.
I can only think of a few things Apple could do productively in this space. Incrementally re-acquiring proprietary principal components will probably kill things like Boot Camp and could jeopardize the ability to use lightweight virtualization solutions. These are, in my view, a major factor assuring would-be adopters that they have a safety net in case the platform doesn't work out as they had hoped.
Threatening this increases Apple's costs while threatening its sales. Oops.
Personally, I was thrilled by the move to Intel and standardized guts. Unless there's an overwhelming benefit to mucking with that, I'd rather see Apple concentrate on its core business and core pathway to differentiated computing experiences: SOFTWARE.
This is exactly the point. The problem is that Jobs is on record saying he likes to own all the principle technology in his products.
Apple's ability to compete on price, and its guarantee on margins, is dependent on picking the right battles. Seducing component makers to build Apple a tweaked parts run is fair game, as it involves little Apple investment. (repackaged MacBook Air CPU from Intel, for example) Re-engineering important things like the controllers on the motherboard ... everyone is trying to make those better, why not join them for the ride and get the benefits as fast as they materialize and without the overhead of doing it separately or first? Why get into an arms race? Apple's been there before, and (a) it costs money and (b) you risk getting behind.
I still hold out hope that the Apple-specific parts are intended to be part of a niche push and aren't part of an overall strategy to deploy nonstandard hardware across Apple's lineup. Handhelds, for example, might benefit quite a bit from energy and performance tweaks, and there is not currently a marketing plus to "standardization" in that space. On the other hand, with Intel targeting the space, will Apple really be building something that gives it a competitive advantage, or will Apple be playing the B-side of the PPC album?
Take care,
--Tex.
ahh, a totalitarian plot em.
re competition
I wonder if there's a reason to think Canada's experience is different from other experience.
The next question is, of course, what "normal" non-launch demand patterns are like.
My other question is what avenues will be used to distribute iPhones in China. The first Apple Store's been open there a week or more ... is it selling phones? On Jul 17, the answer was 'no': http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2008/07/17/beijing-apple-store-in-photos/
When, then?
With the revenue-sharing demand off the table, Apple's obstacles should seem mostly over. Other high-end phones are available in China with subsidy, aren't they? If not, Apple would not have any barrier to selling the phones subsidy-free, as it would not worry early adopters would get outdone on price by laggards who waited for a carrier-subsidized phone with contract.
Take care,
--Tex.
GOOG IPO
Filed Apr. 30, 2004.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/technology/google/
The shares were priced in accordance with an auction system the founders thought would generate "fair" pricing.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20031023/1543203.shtml
The shares were issued at $85 but didn't trade below $95, perhaps because bidders in the auction were not issued the number of shares they hoped, but about a quarter less.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27391-2004Aug23.html
The money quote from the last link is: "I'll repeat what I said three weeks ago. This price is insane. And anyone buying Google as a long-term investment at $109.40 will lose money."
Gotta love it!
Incidentally, does anyone here know anything about cuil.com and the likelihood it's a threat?
Also, does anyone know how Google figures out what's a likely click, rather than just a click that would be profitable if anyone bit? The reason I ask is this observation:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/07/nobody-clicking-id-ads.html
(includes links on "intelligent design", where Google put up pro-ID ad links despite the site's apparent stance skeptical of the theory).
Anyway, the 2004 date and the $100 range were both right
Take care,
--Tex.
Apple's Margins Mystery
Maybe Apple plans pissing away its profits re-inventing the wheel already used by competitors, available from OEM vendors in the form of commodity parts:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-apples-margins-could-fall.html
This has to be the worst explanation for Apple's sinking margins, but on the evidence it seems most plausible. Apple had a perfect storm: competitors all using similar parts, freedom from the marginal cost of third-party operating system licenses, and therefore the ability to have superior margins on lower prices.
I really hope the new expense is something reasonable, and not a simple remake of the notebook motherboard, destined for obsolescence at Intel's next chip release.
Take care,
--Tex.
Don't need no steenking standards!
Apple to ditch Intel accoutrements for custom platform in which to ship Intel CPUs?
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/07/28/macbook.custom.platform/
Take care,
--Tex.
iPhone queues
There are still queues? Is this because of high unit volume or snail-slow transaction speed associated with new activation requirements?
The increased store hours will add some expense, but if they're only doing it while unit sales are up ....
Take care,
--Tex.
speaking truth to power
It's a shame there's nobody that can speak truth to Steve's power to tell him on this particular matter, this approach, the emperor has no clothes.
There are plenty of them, I imagine, just no longer at Apple.
You know what happens when you speak truth to power ....
Take care,
--Tex.
re Forstall
Actually, I was thinking at first it could have been him who was tasked with the blog entries ....
Take care,
--Tex.
PS You won't find me defending Apple on dotMac, I've told anyone who would listen why I threw in the towel on the service years ago. A serious embarrassment. However, even fools can keep a power switch plugged in. I think these guys are using the wrong tools, and need someone who understands how to provide reliable data-driven apps to demanding users in quantity.
re PC for school
In this era of Intel Macs, the "need" to buy Brand X has basically vanished. You may find the school has a site license for Microsoft products that either includes students or gives students a cut-rate on installation media. I would buy the Mac and try any PC-only titles in a VM, with Boot Camp to act as a safety net in case of serious problems.
with the bigger drive, and with little use for the MS-Win partition, I'd think sparing a little space for the other OS shouldn't be much of a problem.
Dell must be making out like a bandit with these school-affiliate programs to sell to students who think they face a school hardware mandate.
Take care,
--Tex.
re Stevester
I think sentencing someone to online confession several times a week to explain publicly what's going on is in part intended to shame folks into performance.
My question is how they got themselves into the position they're now in. I suspect a strategic problem with the system's architecture; a machine exploding into flames shouldn't mean a damned thing in this world of redundant systems. The fact Apple can lose data is shameful. They need someone who understands reliability.
Some chronicling of Apple's embarrassment with the service:
http://jadedconsumer.blogspot.com/search/label/Ticker%3AAAPL
Take care,
--Tex.
re early adopters
I think folks looking at those graphs are confusing adoption of a technology (smartphones, PDAs, etc.) with adoption of a specific product (iPhones, Palms).
We're definitely well past early adopters on smartphones, given the ubiquity of things like Blackberries.
Whether Apple's iPhone contains enough new tech to place it someplace earlier on the curve is probably a good place for academic debates, but I think the growth in the smartphone market as a whole leaves quite a bit of carcass for everybody with a good product for the next few years. Eventually when it plateaus, it'll be interesting to see who has what share and what features distinguish the competitors, but I suspect that the place we are on the curve for smartphones depends dramatically with the geographic market we look at. Some countries are well ahead of the US in smartphone dispersion, I understand.
The other thing to think about is unit lifespan. Phones get rough use, and subsidized phones get replaced with a certain frequency -- in part, because of feature upgrades (battery life, speed, storage, etc.). Just because the technology isn't getting more widespread doesn't mean units aren't being sold into the market.
How many people who had a computer in 1990 never bought one again? I'd guess fairly few. I expect smartphones will give the same kind of repeat sales.
Take care,
--Tex.
re patents
There's a hell of a lot of difference between patenting the idea of a touch screen UI and the idea of using a pinching motion to zoom in and out.
Yes, but patenting a tool that enables a touch-sensitive surface to distinguish and interpret more than one finger at a time is a prerequisite to making sense of pinching-type gestures, and is also distinct from the general idea of touch-based UI.
Maybe we're missing each other by not speaking the same language.
(1) Apple didn't invent touch screens, and Apple doesn't have a patent on touch screens. Many people make touch screens.
(2) Apple didn't invent touch screens capable of discerning multiple touches simultaneously, but it BOUGHT the tech from inventors and is presently listed as assignee (and not some mere licensee) to a still-valid patent granting the right to enjoin and obtain damages from anyone making or selling such a device anyplace that, due to treaty obligations, will honor the patent.
Because of (1), we will see touch-screen competitors.
Because of (2), we will not see MULTITOUCH competitors, barring competition by a firm with a cross-licensing agreement with Apple that would make them licensees of Apple's patent already.
I have no beef with your correct statements about (1). I think Apple's opportunity to compete exclusively with multitouch is plausible, if it gets off its duff and does something really innovative with it, because of (2).
Have a great weekend!
Take care,
--Tex.
re debate
Of all people, I would expect a lawyer to know there darned sure will be, lol. You speak as though you know with absolute certainty what constitutes infringement in this instance. I would suggest nobody knows that until/unless it's adjudicated. If it gets to that point.
As a lawyer I know you can make claims, but I didn't know anyone had a plausible theory (e.g., alternate inventor, prior use, etc.) that would cast any meaningful doubt on the rights the patent appears to grant to its holder under federal law.
In the interim. Android and Windows 7 Mobile both have it (multi-touch). That means either both the Google and Microsoft legal teams either believe they've been able to skirt around infringement (or believe there simply is none), or that they've decided they're willing to plough forward even though they believe they're infringing, but figure they'd never get license from Apple, and would prefer to accept a de facto settlement in court.
Neither Android nor Windows 7 Mobile are a piece of hardware capable of infringing the patent. Both might support touch screens ... but is there actually a competing multitouch hardware vendor? If there's competing multitouch, it's (a) news to me, and (b) interesting to see from whom.
Also, MSFT and GOOG could have patent cross-licensing arrangements that cover (or arguably cover) Apple's multitouch patent. MSFT in particular is known over time to have had cross-licensing arrangements with AAPL, and I suspect that GOOG has entered one, too. These companies have too much IP to want to risk infringing it, so a cross-licensing arrangement makes life easier for everybody.
The question is whether hardware vendors who want to deploy Android or MSW/7M will also have cross-licensing arrangements. During development, of course, GOOG and MSFT may make all kinds of prototypes -- fearlessly, under the cross-licensing arrangement -- that might not be available from third parties later.
Curiouser and curiouser
Take care,
--Tex.
re iPhone and competitors
I thought it was interesting that the big concern seemed to be battery life, and that there was agreement the iPhone 2.0 could really replace Blackberries even for folks who'd carried both devices under v1.x.
Then, I note that Vista can't run on subnotebooks? And MSFT has decided to exert control over what its OEMs put into their hardware? And will be strong-arming phone partners to follow MSFT's vision of how to make phones to work with MSFT's software? It must be interesting, thinking one's hardware partners haven't anywhere else to go for software.
http://macworld.co.uk/mac/news/index.cfm?newsid=22165
And Android hasn't done much more than frustrate developers ....
Fascinating stuff.
Take care,
--Tex.
patents = exclusivity
The meaning of a patent is the right to exclude infringers. Apple is listed as assignee to the patent. Apple didn't license some implementation, it owns the thing and has the right to enjoin infringers and take damages and fees while it does so.
The fact Apple may need to license implementation details from third parties doesn't mean Apple can't stop folks from selling the mousetrap it bought.
I don't see any reason multitouch shouldn't be subject to patent, and Apple is the listed assignee on an issued patent. Is there a debate left?
Maybe in China where nobody cares about US laws and there's no IP treaty worth a nickel, but is there a competitor Apple is worried about? Mind you, I think China is an important market. Apple may seek a patent there separately, but I have no information on this. You can have use outside (but not inside) China and still obtain a patent there.
Take care,
--Tex.
re multitouch
My understanding is that Apple acquired the associated patents when it acquired the tech. If Apple has patents on multitouch, it will have a protectable monopoly wherever the patents are valid.
Patents? Exclusive? Don't think so.
The USPTO disagrees:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=multitouch&OS=multitouch&RS=multitouch (I hope this one works, else search "multitouch" on an open search session)
The prospect of competitors with products aware of touch and gesture is a certainty; whether they can support multitouch in the face of Apple's acquired IP is another question.
If Apple doesn't do anything particularly cool with multitouch, the feature may become irrelevant before the patents expire.
Take care,
--Tex.
frozen out during edit
I took a call and the edit I was working on was rejected. Tech adoptions isn't Apple sales. Early adopters for touch devices for personal organization were Newton and Palm II buyers, maybe; and smartphones are a fairly established market now. However, there's enough not-adopted market in the world that there's potentially tons of sales growth for everyone, if the right combination of price, features, service options, and so on were to materialize. However, smartphones may end up like luxury-marque cars: everyone sees them, but their fraction of the market remains modest on a worldwide basis.
I remember when I thought Mercury was upscale. How my perception has changed ....
Take care,
--Tex.