Andrew Oresto

Should Apple Spin Off Its App Store?

Thank you for your comments,

I agree with your thoughts on MSFT; in now way would I want Apple to be MSFT. What makes Apple unique is its unceasing ability to innovate. MSFT, rather, replicates rather than innovates. There is a transition happening right now though, and the corporation with the best approach to this shift is likely to grab significant leverage over the platform of device connected computing. Rather than implement a business model as MSFT has done--a seller of software, here the value lies in the "users" connecting to the platform. Here Apple will just give the iphone OS 3 away and charge collect revenue through its app store. As a platform, the market itself will ensure only the best quality devices and apps will succeed, and Apple will be the primary "cloud" to run it all.


On Aug 10 11:00 PM Tom B wrote:

> This line nearly made me fall off my chair:
>
> " Right now Apple has the opportunity to do what Microsoft (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> did for PCs in the 70’s;"
>
>
> What, exactly, in your estimation, was MSFT's contribution to the
> PC world, and why ON EARTH would anybody want to replicate that?
> The pat answer would be MSFT wrote DOS, later Windows (having seen
> early versions of Mac OS) and then allowed any idiot to throw a bunch
> of parts in a box and sell it to the rubes. Palm tried exactly the
> same questionable business model, when they out-licensed their OS
> to Handspring, etc. Palm's doing great now, aren't they (not!)?
> This was supposed to promote "competition". All it actually produced
> was "frustration", and vendors competing over razor thin margins
> to see who can use the cheapest possible parts and still assemble
> something that will boot.
>
> One (of several) reasons MSFT is unable to birth an OS more elegant
> than, say, a Pontiac Aztec, is that they have eight zillion hardware
> configurations to support with every release. They're a massively
> huge, successful company, to be sure, but that's only because they
> found a big stable of "sheeple" that will buy anything they spew
> out, that is, the Enterprise market.

Should Apple Spin Off Its App Store?

True, there is significant value in apple running a closed ship with the iphone--it then holds a user experienice envied by so many customers and likely causes a lot of them to switch to iphones. This is true.

But...

Right now with corporations vying for leadership in 'cloud' technology, Apple has the chance to become platform for the majority of the world's computing devices. This is essentially so much larger than what the company will be if it remains a closed 'cloud'.

In fact, I believe by not opening its iphone operating system and app store, it leaves the doors open for the likes of Google to be successful where Apple already is, but on a much larger scale. The real battle going on is not about how many pieces of hardware a company can sell; it is about who owns and operates the platform that runs all of the myriad of devices connected to it--and these devices will be exploding onto the market at a more and more quickening pace. That is where the future is.

I see an opportunity for Apple's OS and app store to be that platform; because the sum total of all the devices with the ability to connect to it far exceed the value of the actual devices sold.

On Aug 10 12:45 PM NDinMSP wrote:

> I agree with the above posts. The App Store is a big reason people
> buy the phone. Why else would they feature it in their very effective
> "There's An App For That" TV ads.

It's Not a 'Cloud', It's a 'Brain'

That sentence is certainly a mouth full.., lol. I'll be mindful in the next piece =)


On Aug 07 09:21 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Orestes: Tighten up the prose:
>
> "For those of you familiar with brain chemistry, you can think of
> these devices as a neurons—when we touch or speak into it, it transmits
> information based on our usage habits, times spent on apps, the types
> of apps we download, the music and movies we like, the games we are
> interested in, or basic information based on who we reach out to—such
> demographics are stored in a centralized location profiling who we
> are as users, customers, cultures."
>
> An interesting article. Good tidings.

It's Not a 'Cloud', It's a 'Brain'

I certainly don't advocate any kind of revolution, nor am I a fan of Ted Kaczynski in any way, shape or form. The article is a metaphor to insight critical thinking regarding the quickening pace of technological change. I do believe we are at a tipping point, that there is a rapid shift occurring in our culture toward the digitization of just about everything, and their are definitive parallels between the way our brains function and the way the internet is evolving. Our bodies are an efficient natural means of performing the highest functions in nature--engineering structures often mimic what nature produces, and I find it ironic that the primary functions of the brain mirror what humans have collectively done through the internet.

>>Their revolutionary strategy is to frame the future as a clear-cut choice between technology and wild nature.

If anything this is a further example how embedded technology is within nature--it may very well be our own egocentric beliefs, which have enabled this schism between technology and nature. After all, we are part and parcel to nature like any other, who is to say there is anything unnatural about what our technology enables? The effects of our technology; however, should definitely be considered for their positive and negative results. If a particular technology is not a means for increasing the overall goodness and well being of sentient beings, why develop it? We need to make sure we are using technology is such a way that benefits, not that destroys, which is exactly Ted Kaczynski did--destroyed lives rather influenced them to positively use technology.


On Aug 07 07:13 PM GiordanoBruno wrote:

> Ted Kaczynski wrote that the widespread frustration of individuals
> in our sick western civilization results in individuals turning to
> the mass entertainment industry and useless, “surrogate activities”,
> as stamp-collecting, spectator sports and even science. Escape (from
> reality) is “escape” after all, and it can be alcohol, drugs, video
> games, or addiction to pointless postings on-line. Ted believed that
> without these palliatives for the people, the system, which has to
> produce them, would collapse.
>
> Ted offered that our sorry society is currently in crisis, and we
> must aid the “oversocialized”, and the goal of the revolutionaries
> (still to be recruited), consists in “heightening the social stresses
> within the system... so that a revolution against it becomes possible.”
> These individuals also post here.
>
> Their revolutionary strategy is to frame the future as a clear-cut
> choice between technology and wild nature, which is very appealing
> to the 'environmentalist strain' in the masses. Creating a schism
> between Science and Religion would be another goal of the revolutionary.
> [Science must have 'no comment' least we alienate the superstitious].
> Configuring a 'mythical super brain' would be another 'Foil Hat'
> reason to join the revolution.
> In my opinion, our Orwellian situation seems to be getting worse,
> so the number of 'Ted's' in our society will definitely be on the
> increase. I don't offer a cure, but be aware that there are false
> cures,
> and naive assumptions out there.

It's Not a 'Cloud', It's a 'Brain'

The last "breakthrough" contains so many groundbreaking and earth-shattering implications, I don't believe it's accurate to categorize with the "things" mentioned. Could the internet really be called a thing? Where does it begin and where does it end? There is nothing "thingy" about it--it borders on being a concept. The smart phone itself is only one example of how the "brain" is developing--the explosion of devices to come will reinforce these nodes of communication to centralized organizing "brain space": Cars devices, appliance devices, automatons, these technologies will have access to and be able to respond to a governing centralized intelligence. I don't believe this is science fiction, it's here and now and rapidly developing at pace we're failing to realize. Look how quickly the newspaper industry and the music industry has been transformed? What other industries are to follow? Watch cable services be next to undergo drastic change as video quality improves and content is of a higher quality.

It's Not a 'Cloud', It's a 'Brain'

>>No other technology lets us feel so connected in the way smartphones do, since we don't ever have to be apart from them.

Couldn't agree more... smart phones are becoming extensions of who we are. Losing a smart phone will soon be like losing your very own digital cloning device. Everyday more and more we live and communicate in two worlds: one of pixels, the other of matter. The smart phone is fast becoming the primary means of accessing the world pixels and "The Brain" is organizing this world.


On Aug 07 09:53 AM mollytjm wrote:

> great article. i've often thought the same thing when i see big
> traffic patterns. People who own iPhones often say something like
> "it's part of me" and it does feel like that. No other technology
> lets us feel so connected in the way smartphones do, since we don't
> ever have to be apart from them.
> Kurzweil just reported that the Japanese have created a touchable
> holographic system, where you actually feel things, like rain falling
> on your hand.
> The rate of technological change is accelerating, fast...and it's
> very exciting. I don't think it's a question of admiring our own
> shine as much as just feeling amazed at how things are changing and
> hopeful that this 'connectedness' will mean we understand each other
> better. That would help a lot.
> In the meantime, Apple and Google remain good long term stocks...Apple
> especially, since it has established products.
> Long APPL

How Much Are Apple's 45 Million Users Worth?

Thanks for your comments craigimass--how much Apple ultimately makes off these devices is certainly debatable; it's an important conversation for investors to have though, my belief is because these devices take the place and merge with so many different forms of devices (gameboys, televisions, walkmans, traditional cell phone, pcs, etc...), Apple stands to collect a substantial portion of what users pay for this content. Apple now has a relationship with their users that every day becomes more and more integral to their lives, a trend that will continue to deepen as the these technologies develop.


On Jul 29 10:31 AM craigimass wrote:

> Hogwash!
>
> I am a relatively wealthy iphone user and there is icebergs chance
> in hell that I would spend $60 a month in addition to the regular
> phone fees on content!
>
> Oh, I am a long time Apple shareholder too - but I certainly don't
> fool myself - the real story is good enough!
>
> If you are going to go way out on a limb.....you might say that the
> AVERAGE user will pay $15 a month eventually for such content and
> that Apple would see $5. of it.
>
> However, the selfish side of me hopes that folks like you keep pumping
> like this, because you will drive the stock price up and then I can
> sell....and maybe buy again when it crashes to reality.

How Much Are Apple's 45 Million Users Worth?

Hey Jack Dee,

I'm waiting until tomorrow's First Solar's earning before I start drinking, hopefully some celebratory drinking at that =)

Thought I made a big blunder, but I re-check the link in the article and 4.1 billion is accurate--there are approximately 1.2 billion landlines. Sticking with 10% of 410 million users forecast as Apple's share of the smart phone pie once the market reaches maturity.

On Jul 29 05:13 PM jack dee wrote:

> wow, so Apple gets 10% of gobal phone market?
>
> What are you drinking dude?
>
> less than 3billion CELL phone sub across the entire planet, not
> 4, that number includes land lines.
>
> OF the 3 B out there, 2 billon are in 3rd world countries.
>
> That leaves about 1 BILLION subs , of which hundreds of millions
> are pay as you go basic users, the market for high priced plans
> is a mere few 100 million at best.
>
> So lets be fair instead suggest 4 billion why not 400 million.
> and of course 10% of that is 40 million, so lets double it 80 million
> and there is a number that might be worth talking about.
>
> 100 million at a push.

Amazon Still Looks Overvalued

Overpriced, is it?? I don't know... I've been wanted to pull the trigger and buy some shares for the past few months, but am still sitting on the sideline due to the 50x earnings. But this stock has some real great potential--the kindle means little compared to owning the markets that stream all of the books and that a pittance compared to this companies potential. This is "the" e-tailer and as smart phones and all sorts of mobility starts coming on the the net--there is going to be huge rev increases. I have this funny feeling that the internet is going to explode again like a pressure cooker in the coming years--this slowing/non growth is a blip in radar. The dawning of mobile computing and a wide range of device connectivity is here, and once it revs up in full force the 50x earnings won't matter too much I'm thinking. I'm buying.

Jump into the Stream

All right, so what are some specific ways to capitalize on "The Stream" ? Sounds like the title of a Stephen King movie. I noticed something on Facebook that was really interesting to me today--there are close to two million fans of "The Beach"--does the person who started that group get to use it for ads in the future. Not sure if it qualifies as a "stream" phenomenon, but this isn't your father's internet.