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.
Happy Turkey Day, all!
Beatles Sales On iTunes Top 450K
November 23, 2010 - Digital and Mobile
By Billboard staff
The initial Beatles sales figures are in: More than 450,000 albums and 2 million individual songs were sold on iTunes worldwide, according to Apple, since the Beatles catalog was made available Tuesday (Nov. 16). In U.S. the best-selling album was "Abbey Road" and best-selling song was "Here Comes the Sun."
Of that tally, U.S. album sales totaled 119,000 units, which included 13,000 digital box sets, while individual digital track sales reached 1.4 million, according to industry sources. Each digital box set included 13 studio albums, the two-volume “Past Masters” compilation and the “Live at the Washington Coliseum, 1964” concert film. Sources say the U.S. album sales tally of 119,000 counts each box set as one unit, while Apple’s worldwide album sales tally counts each box set as multiple sales units, although it wasn’t immediately clear how many units each box set accounted for.
The Fab Four’s debut-week sales on iTunes compare favorably with the first-week sales of previous iTunes holdouts. When Led Zeppelin’s catalog made its digital debut in November 2007, the band generated total U.S. digital album sales of 47,000 units, which included sales of 33,000 units of the two-volume hits compilation “Mothership,” which was released the same week, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Led Zeppelin’s first-week individual track sales totaled 300,000, according to SoundScan.
But these numbers also show that digital music consumers aren't necessarily holding their breath to pounce on buying music when holdouts finally join the fray. Led Zeppelin's entire catalog may have generated digital track sales of 300,000, but Eminem’s digital track “Not Afraid” alone sold 379,000 units in the its debut week ended May 9, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
First-week digital track sales for superstar acts this year typically ranged from 100,000 to 300,000 per title, while digital album sales ranged anywhere from 40,000 to 278,000 for Taylor Swift’s blockbuster third album “Speak Now.”
Weekly U.S. digital track sales have averaged 21.7 million units so far in 2010, according to SoundScan. That means the Beatles’ first-week track sales equaled about 6.4% of all U.S. track sales for an average week. That’s more than Island Def Jam Group, Warner Bros. Records or Capitol Records each sold in the week ended Nov. 14, when their respective market shares were 5.6%, 5.3% and 4.5% and track sales totaled 21.3 million units, according to SoundScan.
The Beatles’ debut on iTunes was accompanied by an extensive marketing campaign, including prominent homepage placement on iTunes and TV spots that aired during Sunday’s American Music Awards broadcast on ABC, Sunday Night Football on NBC and other prime-time programming.
The iTunes marketing efforts likely helped boost overall sales of Beatles albums. During the week ended Nov. 14 (i.e. the week before the Nov. 16 debut of the Fabs’ iTunes debut), U.S. sales of Beatles albums totaled 20,000, while year-to-date, sales have averaged 23,000 a week, according to SoundScan.
Also helping boost sales of Beatles titles was Amazon’s aggressive discounting of all Beatles albums during the same week as their exclusive digital debut on iTunes. Amazon priced single-CD albums at $7.99, the double-disc album known as the “White Album” at $11.99 and EMI’s stereo and mono box sets at $130 each. By contrast, iTunes is selling individual Beatles albums for $12.99 each, the “White Album” for $19.99 and the digital box set for $150.
Sources say the Beatles/iTunes media campaign is expected to kick into high gear this for Black Friday, with expanded TV advertising in the U.S. and full-page ads in the “Wall Street Journal” and the “New York Times.”
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i39b5c49ccd74a21f12815b9fb843970c
You gotta remember: he's eating for Steve Jobs, too.
Breaking -- Woz Misquoted!
Exclusive: Woz misquoted! 'Almost every app that I have is better on the iPhone'
By Nilay Patel posted Nov 18th 2010 1:31PM
Exclusive
Interview
Some comments attributed to Steve Wozniak caused quite a kerfuffle this morning -- according to Dutch paper De Telegraaf, Woz said that "Android phones have more features," which would help Google's OS become the dominant smartphone platform. Obviously, a statement like that from Apple's co-founder rocketed around the web, and it's set off yet another round of furious Android-vs-iOS debate. There's just one problem, though: Woz never said anything like that. Turns out Woz is an Engadget commenter just like you, and when we saw that he'd left a clarification on the post, we called him up for a quick chat to sort everything out.
Woz says he gave the De Telegraaf reporter a lengthy demonstration of voice commands on iOS and Android, pointed out that Android offered the ability to say "Navigate to Joe's Diner," and suggested that Apple would catch up through its purchases of Siri and Poly9. According to Steve, that's about it -- he says he'd "never" say that Android was better than iOS, and that "Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone." Woz did say he lightly prognosticated that Android would become more popular "based on what I've read," but that he expects Android "to be a lot like Windows... I'm not trying to put Android down, but I'm not suggesting it's better than iOS by any stretch of the imagination. But it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy." He's not shy, that Woz -- listen to him say it all for yourself after the break.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/18/exclusive-woz-misquoted-almost-every-app-that-i-have-is-bette
Why Apple May Not Be Worried About Google’s Android Momentum
Nov. 17 2010 - 7:43 pm
Much ink is spilled daily about the rivalry between Apple and Google in the mobile market. Avi Greengart, the Research Director for Consumer Devices at Current Analysis, makes the case that a lot of the coverage is misguided.
In a Nov. 16 research report, Greengart punctures the oft-made argument that Google’s “open” approach to creating and distributing mobile products will defeat Apple’s “closed” one, similar to the way PCs powered by Microsoft’s Windows became dominant over the Macintosh, due to Apple’s tight control.
Greengart sums up that position as:
Thanks to the open nature of the Android platform, vendors from HTC to Motorola to Samsung are building more powerful hardware than Apple, and soon the iPhone will be relegated to a small percentage of the market, and Apple will be in trouble once again.
Greengart then explains why this thinking is misguided.
Android’s success doesn’t necessarily mean failure for the iPhone. The mobile industry is not a zero sum game, writes Greengart.
Any story that portrays Apple as “relinquish[ing] its dominance of the smartphone market to Android” is also mistaken, adds Greengart. Despite its incredible success over the past three years, Apple is not the No. 1 seller of smartphones globally. That company would be Nokia.
Trumping this all is the matter of profitability, a.k.a. the real reason why Apple may not be too worried about Google’s Android momentum. Apple’s combination of high-margin devices coupled with consistently huge sales means that it makes more money than anyone else in the mobile industry, writes Greengart. Apple doesn’t specify how profitable its individual business units are, but Greengart notes that its iPhone revenues totaled $8.6 billion last quarter and its corporate gross margin was more than 36%–figures that point to “extremely robust” iPhone profits “no matter how the numbers are actually broken down.”
The numbers also mean that right now Apple outsells any individual Android licensee, such as HTC, Motorola or Samsung, and out-earns all of them combined, says Greengart. The figures also indicate that Apple will remain the profitability leader even if Android takes a larger share of the market overall. To stay in the lead, Apple simply needs to keep a “top three” or “top four” smartphone vendor ranking and continue selling high-margin devices, says Greengart.
That’s not to say that Apple is invincible. Greengart cites two cases in which Apple could stumble. The first: missing a major shift in how consumers use smartphones. Other market leaders, such as Motorola, lost their crowns by arriving late to or ignoring major trends. The second potential hazard, according to Greengart, is the possibility that Google will subsidize Android phones with the money it makes from mobile ads. Wide availability of low-cost yet high-end Android phones would place Apple at a “severe disadvantage,” writes Greengart. He adds, however, that Google is unlikely to make such an unusual move, at least in the near term.
In short, no matter how the quarterly cellphone shipment rankings shift, Apple will stay on top, at least in some respects. As Greengart concludes, “Apple is just fine with Google ‘beating’ it in market share as long as it can corral the lion’s share of industry profits…Apple wins the real game among handset vendors, which is making money.”
http://blogs.forbes.com/elizabethwoyke/2010/11/17/why-apple-may-not-be-worried-about-googles-android-momentum/?partner=yahootix
Yep. The Beatles on iTunes...
http://www.apple.com/the-beatles/
And, what the heck, even more speculation...
Apple's big iTunes tease
Posted by Philip Elmer-DeWitt
November 15, 2010 11:01 AM
Source: Apple Inc.
Could Tuesday be the day Apple (AAPL) lights up on its billion-dollar server farm in North Carolina, launching its entry into cloud computing? That's what the big tease that appeared on the front page of Apple.com Monday morning suggests.
Among the threads that seem to be coming together this week:
The 500,000-square-foot data center in Maiden, N.C. -- nearly five times the size of Apple's giant data center in Newark, Calif. -- which COO Tim Cook has said is on track to open this year and could very well be ready to go this week.
Apple's purchase last December of Lala's streaming music service, which it shuttered five months later, presumably to replace it with a streaming version of iTunes.
The high-quality live web-streams of Steve Jobs' last two performances, suggesting that Apple may have developed the capability of streaming video as well as audio.
The latest version of iCal, which replaces locally stored data with calendars stored on Apple's servers.
The launch of the new MacBook Airs, which Jobs described as the shape of notebook computers to come. Their relatively small storage capacity (starting at 64 GB) suggests that in the future, Apple may expect users to store their files in the cloud, rather than on their hard drives.
The latest iteration of Apple TV, which replaces hard-drive storage with streaming video.
In a note to clients issued Monday morning, Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster had this to say about the "online iTunes-related event" scheduled for 10 a.m. EST (7 a.m. PST):
"We believe Apple could announce a cloud-based iTunes service for content streaming to connected devices. Apple is developing a data center in Maiden, NC that we believe could serve as the hub for such a service. The company has indicated that the data center is on track to be completed by the end of CY10 and it will begin using it then. With Apple's growing family of connected devices (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV, and Macs) it only makes sense that Apple would deliver a cloud-based media service to leverage its competitive advantage in the space: devices. As part of this, the new Apple TV with limited storage, a lower price, and a focus on accessing content over the internet would fit in nicely. We see this device, and the potential iTunes cloud-based service, as a stepping stone for an all-in-one, connected Apple television."
More on tomorrow's announcement...
An Exciting Announcement from iTunes tomorrow?
Interesting: this image appeared on Apple.com’s front page today. It was also the standard top-page banner in the iTunes app (which is where I first saw it a moment ago.) At 10 AM tomorrow (Eastern time) Apple will announce…OK, something. I haven’t any firm idea of what it’s going to be.
But it’s a Monday morning, so let’s see if we can’t goof of of work all the way until lunchtime by engaging in extracurricular speculation.
Point One: Apple doesn’t tend to stick its neck out this far unless they think they really do have something big on their hands. So they probably won’t be naming Paul Anka as their featured artist of the week. Secondly, it’s definitely not a hardware item. That’s not an iTunes-specific announcement. Besides, if it were hardware, Apple would have released it weeks ago to get a jump on the holiday season.
It seems likely to be some sort of extension to the scale of the iTunes service in general. I’m guessing that it’ll either be an “iTunes Anywhere” feature (stream your purchased content to any of your iOS devices or one of your five approved desktops; it’s seemed inevitable, ever since Apple bought Lala.com, a streaming music service last year) or it’ll be a new deal that dramatically expands the range of TV programming available for purchase and rental.
The odd timing makes me lean towards the latter. Apple’s never done a big “Hey, everyone, look at us” announcement like this so close to the holidays. I presume that whatever-it-is would encourage people to buy more Apple hardware, or that it’ll position them extremely strongly against competition; otherwise, it seems like you’d want to hold off on an announcement until you could get more attention for it. If Apple suddenly had lined up deals to deliver the majority of popular TV shows to their software and hardware, then they’d suddenly become the presumptive leaders in Internet TV and the $99 Apple TV would suddenly become a very hot gift for 2010.
And it’d be a very bad news day for supporters of Boxee and Google TV. Consumers are still waiting for that last, clear, compelling reason to hook up a WiFi-enabled box to their TV sets: the first service and device that delivers close to a full range of broadcast and cable programming will likely end the competition before it really began.
My other reason for suspecting a new pile of TV deals is that by their nature, negotiating with all of the corporate entities that control TV content is a frustratingly nonlinear and analog process. I can easily imagine Apple hoping, or even expecting, that they’d have closed all of these deals in time for the annual iPod announcements last month…but that things dragged on another few weeks.
(I can picture the new head of NBC Universal listlessly prodding at the plateful of kitten hearts Apple presented to him as requested. “They’e tasty,” he said, “but unless I get to eat them while children are watching me in tear-stained horror, it’s not really a full meal, is it? Can we try this again in a few weeks?”)
As usual, though, we’ll only know what we know when we know it…and Apple doesn’t want us to know until 10 AM tomorrow.
The time is also possibly an interesting data point: whatever it is, Apple wants every news outlet to have the story in time for the day’s broadcasts…and the stock market will be open and trading when the word gets out. It’s got to be something big. Hell, they don’t even mind that we can record MacBreak Weekly at our usual time with this information firmly in hand. Wow!
[Update: But the pointed use of world clocks keeps me wondering. It implies "everyone in the world will be able to take advantage of this," doesn't it? If that's true, it could point to either conclusion. Streaming is a basic extension to your entire iTunes experience and would apply to all users equally. But so would an expanded marketplace. Either one would require a lot of new deals to allow Apple to send content worldwide.
A deal to send this week's "House" to Japan would seem to be more complex than one to allow streaming of purchased content. But remember that a new streaming feature could also stream that TV show. So maybe it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'll be shocked if it isn't one of those two possibilities, though.]
[Update #2: I'm going to stick to the "expanded content" theory. I can't imagine that Apple could implement a feature as broad as "stream your purchases anywhere" without a LOT of updates to the desktop and mobile editions of iTunes. There's streaming technologies in all of these apps but I don't think Apple would want to do it as a straightforward service that uses standard, right-out-of-the-box functionality.
Apple just released a major new edition of iTunes last week. If this was in the offing, AND I'm correct in assuming that they couldn't enable streaming without a new iTunes...surely they would have waited another week.
Unless, of course, all of the infrastructure is already in iTunes 10, hiding. I'm not sure that the code wouldn't have been discovered by somebody over the past two months, though.]
http://ihnatko.com/2010/11/15/an-exciting-announcement-from-itunes-tomorrow/
iTunes Announcement Tomorrow...
http://www.apple.com/?ref=apple.com/startpage/&sr=st_page
Game changer?
http://www.filmon.com/tv/?mid=13
How not to interview a hedge fund legend
Posted by Philip Elmer-DeWitt
November 4, 2010 3:28 PM
Erin Burnett. Image: CNBC
If CNBC's Erin Burnett weren't born yesterday, she would know that when Julian Robertson ran Tiger Management, one of the early hedge funds, his motto was "find the 200 best companies in the world and invest in them, and find the 200 worst companies in the world and go short on them."
But she was born yesterday. So she began her Robertson interview Thursday with a lead-in that asks "is he worried about an Apple bubble?" She nods agreeably as Robertson tells her Apple (AAPL) "seems to have everything going their way," is "very reasonably valued" and that a lot of people weren't around in the '80s when stocks of far lower quality than Apple were selling at 50, 60 and 70 times earnings.
And she summarizes: "OK, you like it then." Then she asks her question:
"But big picture, you've got some worries. Because, well, everybody knows Apple is a hot stock, it's sort of become, I'll be honest, it's almost like a cult these days."
That's a statement, not a question. But Robertson, now 78, doesn't take the "Apple bubble" bait. Instead, he patiently explains to Ms. Burnett that 18 to 20 times earnings "for maybe the greatest company in the world" isn't at all high.
Video below the fold. Apologies for the 14-second ad.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/04/how-not-to-interview-a-hedge-fund-legend/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
From the Interesting If True Department:
Report: Light Peak Coming To Macs In 2011
By John Brownlee (9:14 am, Nov. 04, 2010)
Last week, Steve Jobs responded to a Mac owner’s question about future USB 3.0 support by saying thatCupertino didn’t see it taking off yet, specifically because Intel has yet to support it.
When we reported that story, we speculated that Apple might view USB 3.0 as a technology that may — like Blu-Ray — be technically superior to what preceded it, but would be quickly made obsolete by an entirely different approach. In Blu-Ray’s case, streaming video came along; in USB 3.0's case, we suspected it would be Light Peak, a new optical cable technology that Intel is working on that would be a single universal replacement for pretty much any digital cable out there, from USB to SATA to HDMI.
Maybe we were right. According to Cnet, Light Peak is on target for a 2011 debut, and Apple is expected to start shipping machines with that standard in the first year.
We’re guessing that Cnet’s right on the money here: if Apple embraces Light Peak — and they have long been rumored to be one of the main forces behind the standard’s creation — it’ll vastly simplify the many different buses inside their machines. They’re going to want to move on from the past as quickly as the market will allow.
Either way, Light Peak is going to blow USB 3.0 out of the water: it supports transfer speeds of up to 10Gbps, which is nearly triple that of USB 3.0. Why settle for less when Apple can wait a year and revolutionize once again?
AAPL, the gift that just keeps on giving...
Apple: Julian Robertson on CNBC discusses AAPL valuation; believes it could get to 25-30x earnings over the next 12 months, which would be a pretty big appreciation (317.87 +5.05)
AAPL is currently trading at 17x FY11 EPS.
Not this year, I'm pretty sure.
Trick or Treat!
http://www.joyoftech.com/joyoftech/index.html
Netflix now the #1 source of U.S. Internet traffic
Monday, October 25th, 2010
Netflix’s streaming service has become so popular that it is now the largest source of U.S. Internet traffic during peak evening hours. Streaming by Netflix subscribers accounted for about one-fifth of that peak-time traffic, more than double the volume flowing from Google Inc.’s YouTube. And this massive infrastructure is supported by… $120 million in PP&E!?
That’s a problem. Imagine if 20% of your town’s traffic was from a pizza delivery company that was 0.01% of the town’s sales tax receipts. The taxpayers and businessmen would be hella mad.
More to the point, Netflix is competing for customers with cable companies who are providing the bandwidth (via their cable Internet offerings) of a large percentage of Netflix customers. Something’s gotta give somewhere.
It could be ugly (bandwidth throttling, government regulation) or it could be pretty (revenue sharing and caching/authorization at the cable company head), but something’s gotta give.
And so how, exactly, does a mobile device communicate with a fiber optic cable?
Au contraire, most of Apple's profit these days come from mobile sales, ie, iPhones, Touches & iPads.
The Touch market may be approaching saturation (although even that is debatable), but smart phones are a relatively new market, and the market for iPads is less than a year old.
Plenty of room for growth in both, including App sales, music, TV, movie, book downloads, advertising, etc.
For that matter, Apple still has plenty of room in which to grow old-fashioned computer sales.
Why HP's Slate isn't anything like the iPad...
For those who are still confused:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9192683/Why_HP_s_Slate_isn_t_anything_like_the_iPad
Laize, don't take offense. We're mostly just joshing.
On the other hand, Apple's 52-week range is $185 to $319.
That's a pretty good swing for a year.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember you thinking that AAPL was a good buy at any entry point.
As for the MBA, it's a very specialized -- or niche if you prefer -- product.
It depends on what you want to pay for extreme portability, long battery life, instant on, and lightness of being in general. (How many times a year do you fly, for example?)
I've got an Aspire One netbook that cost a quarter of the MBA you priced and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
Yes, it works, but only in the sense that all cars have starters and run after you engage same.
The difference is in the drive.
Why do I keep getting the impression that you're under water on RIMM and keep looking for a buy out offer to bail you out?
But seriously, I doubt that MS would be interested in Rim for the same reasons already enumerated below as to why Apple & Google wouldn't be -- MS has its own new mobile OS in the form of Win Phone 7 which is just coming to market.
Rim's mobile OS is pretty staid compared to what the average user/consumer is looking for.
Apple still rules when it comes to Apps.
bloodhound, the iPad's entry into business -- assuming it happens on a wide scale -- will be on an entirely different basis than the Blackberry. The latter was all about email security, in house IT control, remote wiping, etc.
If the iPad makes it it will be largely because of its visual aspects and large screen. Think parts inventory (and pictures), medical records and images, CAD drawings, bar code reading, credit card entry, business presentations, photography portfolios, etc.
Enterprise is a big tent. Lots of opportunities for everyone.
Laize, among several other things, I happen to like the 27" screen of the new iMac.
As for USD vs AAPL share dollars, all I've had to do since the original purchase was sit on them, which isn't exactly heavy lifting.
Since Apple made me the profit to begin with, I don't mind giving a little back.
In the overall scheme of things here, 7 or 8 shares don't amount to a hill of beans.
Maybe we can count on you for an iPod Touch?
Herding Cats: Why Android Is No Threat to Apple
Frank Fox - 2010.10.21
Steve Jobs' supposed rant about the fragmented Android market has created a lot of buzz - but not much thought.
His comments serve two purposes: They shed light on some of Apple's own thoughts back when it reviewed how to launch into the market. Apple has limitations that forced it to focus on only a few products. The other value at a quarterly conference call is to tell investors that Apple made the right choice when it picked its strategy.
Aside from giving investors confidence, questions are now raised about the direction of the Android market. Sure, it looks hot today - so does Apple - but which way will it head? Will the Android become the many-headed hydra that Apple can't beat, or is it a mob that will eventually fall apart?
Kingpin, Good Ol' Boys, Chaos
The direction of Android is today clearly controlled by Google. Handset manufacturer join the Open Handset Alliance (OHA) in order to sell Android phones. While Google really controls Android, they allow broad changes and limitations to be made by the handset manufacture or cellular provider.
We have Google as the Kingpin. As the Kingpin, it wants Android to grow, but Google doesn't sell handsets (it tried), doesn't run a cellular network, and for the most part doesn't sell apps. Google makes money from mobile ads, and other OHA members may contribute financially, but details are unavailable to know if that happens.
For Android to compete with iOS, money needs to be spent on development. The only source of revenue is Google and mobile ads. Google's ability to invest in Android will be limited to the profits from mobile ads. Google recently stated that it is earning $1 billion a year from mobile ads. Clearly there is money to pay for development, but ads - not phones - are Google's focus.
The OHA serves Google in another way to control what is allowed on handsets when a Google service is at risk. Just ask the folks at Skyhook if Google didn't step in to screw up their business deal with Motorola. Google can easily claim that using another service will affect the performance of Android. That either means the software is very limited in how much it can be customized, or Google just wants to keep its revenue streams open.
Guess which one I believe is true.
Herding Cats
On the fringe of implementation, there is a certain degree of chaos. Here is a sample support thread regarding Android. A Samsung Galaxy S owner from T-Mobile couldn't do the same things that a Verizon owner can with the same phone and operating system version. Since Google doesn't give a damn about the phone, except for how well the mobile ads are working, it is happy to let the cellular or handset people create all kinds of inconsistencies.
Summary: We have a mobile operating system being developed by a company that sells ads. It then allows full customization by vendors as long as it doesn't interfere with Google's services that are tied to the operating system. Finally, the handset and cellular people want to distinguish their phones from the competition and limit the phones as they see fit (usually to protect their own services, just as Google does).
While many people can pretend that the many-headed beast led by Google will make the Android great, it is easy to see Jobs' point of view that too many cooks will spoil the soup. The truth is that Android phones will continue to sell well, but that doesn't change Apple's strategy.
Apple's Strategy: Unity with Diversity, not Division
When Apple entered the market, people laughed that at the thought that it would ever sell 10 million phones a year. It now sells 14 million iPhones a quarter, not to mention its strong iPod touch and iPad sales, which use the same operating system as the iPhone.
Apple is fighting for market share. Whether it gains market share from Nokia, RIM, or a herd of Android phones, it is going to continue growing and earning money hand over fist.
The herd of Android phones has its own challenge to face: The more each OHA member makes its own implementation different, the more fractured the Android market becomes. People can say all they want about choice, but here in America the fact is e pluribus unum. They need to work together and not just rely on Google.
Apple clearly has a product strong enough to outdo a disjointed effort.
The funny thing is that Steve Jobs has thrown it in Google's face that Microsoft did a better job working with multiple sources to get Windows working identically on a much wider variety of hardware.
In other words, Google sucks more than Microsoft. And for the people at Google, that has got to sting.
Many embedded links in the original article:
http://lowendmac.com/ed/fox/10ff/apple-vs-android.html
I like your spunk!
sinclap likes to fancy this as an Android vs Apple war, when the real victims are likely to be Rim, Nokia and MS.
Android will continue to be a huge success because it's free and the carriers can muck it up at will, which they will/are doing.
And that's why Android is guaranteed out of the gate to be a perpetually fragmented and frustrating experience for the average consumer. (Geeks of course will be in hog heaven.) Which will probably carry over to any future Android/Chrome tablet devices as well.
Or about 4 shares of AAPL, which would put my total cost of ownership for that particular MBA down around $225-250. I could get it as low as half that if I borrowed the shares from my wife.
Personally, I'm getting ready to order a 27" iMac for which I may shell out as much as 7 or 8 shares.
You're just using the wrong currency.
catty, new Palm products are just coming to market:
Web OS 2.0 and Palm Pre 2 Get Official, France Gets First Dibs
by Terrence O'Brien on October 19, 2010 at 11:45 AM
FILED UNDER: breaking, cellphones
The first webOS-based handset released since HP snatched up Palm was officially announced today and, in addition to packing more powerful innards, the Pre 2 ushers in the era of webOS 2.0. WebOS 2.0 boasts what HP calls "true multitasking" (taking an obvious potshot at Apple's iOS), support for Flash 10.1 and HP Synergy for syncing your data from several services. In addition, the Pre 2 features Exhibition, which lets you trigger various actions -- such as opening a photo slideshow or displaying your daily agenda -- when you connect the Pre 2 to the Touchstone Charging Dock. WebOS 2.0 also adds Just Type, a feature that allows you to start composing status updates, e-mails, or searches before you even open an app. (We haven't seen it in action yet, but we imagine that you just start typing as webOS presents you with a set of actions to perform.) Developers will also be able to integrate Just Type with other apps.
http://www.switched.com/2010/10/19/web-os-2-0-and-palm-pre-2-get-official-france-gets-first-dibs?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_engadget
Verizon to sell Galaxy Tab starting November 11th for $599.99
By Darren Murph posted Oct 20th 2010 8:41AM
Breaking News
Well, we finally have a price on this thing! America's largest carrier has announced plans to sell Samsung's Galaxy Tab for... $599.99. The 3G, Android 2.2-based unit (which will be loaded with V CAST apps, of course) will hit retail on November 11th, and since it's being sold at full price, a data plan (which starts at $20 per month for 1GB) is completely optional. It looks like customers will have some fairly strong choices on Big Red, considering that the impossible-to-ignore iPad is being made available in Verizon's stores as well. Tough decisions are ahead for potential tablet buyers -- but we're sure you'll do what's right. Check out the full press release below, and good luck!
Links at link:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/verizon-to-sell-galaxy-tab-starting-november-11-for-600-world/
Stream for today's event:
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/1010qwoeiuryfg/event/index.html
HP just bought Palm for several billion, no need to buy Rim.
Steve Jobs is right about the 7in tablet
Apple has spoiled us with a 10in tablet and made us reluctant to accept a smaller one.
By Milo Yiannopoulos
Published: 12:13PM BST 20 Oct 2010
The BlackBerry PlayBook will be too small to be truly usable, says Steve Jobs
RIM, the manufacturer of BlackBerry, has hit out at Steve Jobs's assessment of the tablet computer market with a blog post attacking the "distortion field" that supposedly surrounds Apple. But the blog post doesn't answer any of the big questions about tablet computers, preferring instead to make cheap shots about Apple's quality controlled ecosystem and centralised design philosophy. And yes, we all know Apple massages its figures a bit. Can you point to a company that doesn't?
Never mind the criticisms of Jobs's recent "defensiveness": RIM makes no attempt to address the facts in its own crudely judged remarks. In fact, RIM's blog post is the strongest hint that Jobs is right, and that RIM knows it's about to preside over a disaster with the 7in PlayBook.
The thing is, 7in just doesn't make sense for any kind of application. It's too large for the device to be considered a personal organiser (perhaps just as well – in the age of the smartphone they're an embarrassment), but too small to make browsing the web a pleasurable experience. I can't help but think you'd be constantly wishing for those few extra inches, especially when watching video. Try it yourself by drawing a rectangle on a piece of paper with a 7in diagonal. It just looks wrong.
And gaming? Forget it. The PlayBook might be a similar form factor to a lot of hand-held consoles, but try talking the average developer into making a complex 3D game for BlackBerry's clunky OS and they'll laugh you out of their office. RIM "has a high mountain ahead of them to climb" if they're to convince developers to make apps for BlackBerry OS, in addition to Apple's own iOS and Google's Android, said Jobs on Monday. I'll say: developing for BlackBerry is "a world of hurt", according to one London development agency, which regularly turns down clients who want BlackBerry apps built because it's just too laborious to bother with. It remains to be seen whether the new QNX operating system that RIM is debuting on the PlayBook will perform any better. Don't hold your breath.
RIM is also betting on Adobe's Flash technology, claiming that it matters to their customers who want a "real" web experience – whatever that means. Another big mistake: had Flash been the remotest bit important to mobile surfers, the iPad and iPhone would not have become the fastest-selling consumer electronics devices in history. Something tells me the inclusion of Adobe's resource-hogging multimedia platform will make RIM's PlayBook one of the most buggy, freeze-prone mobile devices ever to be released. Besides, Flash will be obsolete, at least in the browser, in a few short years: video and advertising content online is hurtling toward HTML5 capability, which is compatible with the mobile version of Apple's Safari browser.
As for sniping about Apple's fourth quarter financial results: come off it. "Only" 8.4 million devices shipped? RIM will be lucky to sell that many of its devices in the whole first year of sale. As an avid BlackBerry user, I take no pleasure at all in that prediction: I only hope it doesn't finish the company off, because some of their recent handsets have been world-class and I'd be lost without my Bold 9700.
"We know", claims RIM, that 7in tablets "will actually be a big portion of the market". Forgive me, but how do they know this? Have they done any research at all? Because if they have, it isn't evident from a nano-rant that strikes me, frankly, as unbecoming of a chief executive.
Finally, is it just me, or are statements like: "We think many customers are getting tired of being told what to think by Apple," ever so slightly patronising to consumers? I mean, sorry, but, first of all, credit me with enough intelligence to turn down an Apple product if I don't like the look of it (and I have done, many times), and second of all, change the record. The fact is that Apple makes the most seductive and gorgeous gadgets out there. No one else comes close on design, usability or sex appeal. Isn't that what RIM's really upset about?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/blackberry/8075611/Steve-Jobs-is-right-about-the-7in-tablet.html
Futures turned green, Apple Event tomorrow, goodnight sweet sinclap, wherever you are!
bloodhound, give it a rest. Apple is not buying RIMM already, dig?
For reasons that should be obvious.
Whoever buys RIMM will have to maintain and manage their existing subscriber base and integrate their OS.
There might have been a window when MS was interested, but now that they've put all their marbles into Win Phone 7, that window is closed as well.
It's just so not gonna happen.
RIMM is on its own.
No and No. Why on Earth would either Apple (iOS) or Google (Android) want RIMM's outdated mobile OS?
Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results
Record Mac, iPhone and iPad Sales
Highest Revenue and Earnings Ever
CUPERTINO, California—October 18, 2010—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2010 fourth quarter ended September 25, 2010. The Company posted record revenue of $20.34 billion and net quarterly profit of $4.31 billion, or $4.64 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $12.21 billion and net quarterly profit of $2.53 billion, or $2.77 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 36.9 percent compared to 41.8 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 57 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
Apple sold 3.89 million Macs during the quarter, a 27 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 14.1 million iPhones in the quarter, representing 91 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 9.05 million iPods during the quarter, representing an 11 percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter. The Company also sold 4.19 million iPads during the quarter.
“We are blown away to report over $20 billion in revenue and over $4 billion in after-tax earnings—both all-time records for Apple,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “iPhone sales of 14.1 million were up 91 percent year-over-year, handily beating the 12.1 million phones RIM sold in their most recent quarter. We still have a few surprises left for the remainder of this calendar year.”
“We’re thrilled with the performance and strength of our business, generating almost $5.7 billion in cash flow from operations during the quarter,” said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO. “Looking ahead to the first fiscal quarter of 2011, we expect revenue of about $23 billion and we expect diluted earnings per share of about $4.80.”
Apple will provide live streaming of its Q4 2010 financial results conference call beginning at 2:00 p.m. PDT on October 18, 2010 at www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq410/. This webcast will also be available for replay for approximately two weeks thereafter.
Apple prelim $4.64 vs $4.08 Thomson Reuters consensus; revs $20.34 mln vs $18.90 bln Thomson Reuters consensus