Dennis Byron

'The Shallowest Generation': A Rebuttal

Wow! I didn't realize from the earlier insults that you were the same person that wrote the original article. I have never seen anyone write under one name and comment under another.

But now I understand. Unable to prove even one of your points about Baby Boomers, you insult others who call you out on your lack of logic.

Oh, and you should carpool if you're commuting 120 miles a day--save the planet!

Dennis

On Nov 08 02:28 PM JGQ wrote:

> Hey Dennis
>
> Pretty touchy for someone who used the words: rant, blabbers, and
> screed in his attempt to get someone to read one of his articles.
> How does it feel to leech off of me to get someone to read your blather?
> I hope you don't have to rely on your ability to write in order to
> make a living. Let us know what kind of car you drive? How many miles?
> Leased, bought, or did you remortgage your house for a Mercedes?
> Why weren't you able to save enough to put your kids through college?
> I have been saving since my kids were born. I won't be borrowing
> to get them through college.
>
> Wah Wah Wah. That's abuse. Classic boomer.

'The Shallowest Generation': A Rebuttal

Most important, to Axelrod-Glad you got the humor.
--------
To the guy (or girl) who doubts the Social Security numbers, go back and read how SS works (and I am not counting my Medicare contributions which I do fully expect to recoup). As I think Buffet or someone of that net worth says, most of you pay the same as I do in SS taxes. You did not have to be "highly compensated" over the last 45 years to have that kind of money "deposited in your account." You just have to be middle class depending on how that's defined.
--------
To elcopone, if that was Quinn's point, he never said it anywhere in multi-thousands of words. He said:
1. ) "Our claim to fame is living way beyond our means for the last three decades, to the point where we have virtually bankrupted our capitalist system."
and
2.) "Of course, not all Baby Boomers are shallow, greedy, and corrupt. Mostly Boomers with power and wealth fall into this category."
He provides no proof for either statement, which is the reason I wrote the rebuttal over on this part of the site (I actually write about technology investments and related issues).

But to answer your question despite your insult, personally I believe volunteering in non-partisan local government and non-government charitable organizations is a means. That was my choice for 30 years but I don't contend that it is the only means to contribute back to society. Military service, teaching K-12, and social work are careers in this area. Coaching kids sports, elderly services, and working with the disabled are great volunteering opportunities.

Those who attack the Baby Boomers might want to find out how are age bracket does in these areas.
----------
To those of you who have been genuinely disturbed by and thoughtlfully replied to the original article's premise that the Baby Boomer generation is responsible for the financial crisis, note that the orginal author is missing in action. My contention is that there is no data in his multi-thousand-word article that connects demographics with the broad economics discussed here or that relates to the orginal author's specific claim (that greedy baby boomers, not all baby boomers mind you, did such and such).

I pointed out how two of his statistics are demonstrably wrong (or at least misleading)--(
1) where the "greatest generation" got its "wealth" and
(2) the candard about savings rates.
I'm still waiting for any other proofpoints linking generations to all the ills of society; I doubt if they exist at all but they definitely were not in the original article.
----------------
To the ad-hominem attackers, I would like to see SA management delete all such attacks as being below the purpose of this web site but the Internet being what it is, SA would probably go broke trying to do it.

But to the lowlife JCQ, as the "More by Dennis Byron" below indicates I write for a living on the Internet so I'm used to profanity and people who can't think through what they are writing calling me "idiot" or making some insane connection to Todd Palin. But attacking my children is a new low in incoherent Internet idiocy. Your comment is totally ad-hominem and should be reported as abuse.

Dennis

Microsoft Spending on Vista Confirms Linux Foundation Theory

Thanks for the comment Kirk but sorry I don't understand your first question. If this helps explain, the overall point of the above post is to confirm using Microsoft data that the LF theoretical data talked about in the earlier post (vis a vis the R&D expense behind a major software project) is reasonable.

As for the difference with Intel, the difference is that the Linux ecosystem is "open sourced." Google, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. could use all of the LF and related software at no cost but in fact we know that the big companies are realizing some expense because they fund LF, Apache and also devote their own resources to open source. Sun funds most of openoffice.org, Google funds most of Firefox, etc.

The goal is to find out if what they spend as a group and individually is substantially less than what they would be spending if they were all still developing their own ecosystem. (And secondarily, are such savings dropping to the bottom line?)


On Nov 06 09:49 AM Kirk Lindstrom wrote:

> What is the difference between that analysis
>
> "It might have spent the whole $28 billion on XBox but we don't have
> the data to know that."
>
> and throwing paint on the wall and calling it art?
>
> It is an interesting analysis but isn't the question similar to asking
> "how much does Intel developing microprocessors save HP, Apple and
> IBM?"
>
>
>

Can Google Reach Its Pie in the Sky?

Good overview of the issues. I have a couple of nits but I'm not sure if they affect your conclusion:

1. Google's legacy/core business is an advertiser/publisher application delivered as a service, not "search/directory." The facts that the service uses sophisticated patented search technology and is monetized by selling ads are secondary (although the former has helped it succeed in delivering a "packaged" advertiser/publisher application where others failed).

2. Although Google builds "key technology in house," it supposedly (I have never personally researched its claim) does it with commodity and/or open source components, basically providing the "off the shelf" advantage you're concerned about.

I don't think this changes Google's chances competing head-on with Microsoft's SaaS strategy (which it will insist on calling Software Plus Service until Ballmer retires) however. Microsoft is most likely adopting the same commodity and/or open source technologies in its data farms (and even if it is using its own proprietary stuff, it doesn't pay list price). And Microsoft should be able to maintain application functionality superiority for 10 years simply based on momentum (barring some execution mistake which I think it unlikely Ozzie would make).

Neither company should try to deliver the network infrastructure itself. Going back to the utility metaphor, they shouldn't try to be GE circa 1940, delivering both dynamos and light bulbs (but not sure it does either anymore).

Microsoft, Sun Do Well in Open Source Census

The above commenters may not completely understand how the census works. The group conducting the census welcomes information from Mac, BSD, Solaris, and other platforms.

As for Java, I believe it is a prerequisite of even beginning the census so by definition it is on every "machine" scannned.

More information see https://osscensus.org/discover... .

Or just rant away!!

-- Dennis

Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft

Dear Wild-eyed Zealot:

I would prefer to email you directly about this rather than bore other SA readers but I need to assure you that my definition is not "odd" or "bizarre," I am not confusing free and open source, and I fully understand all the implications of what I am writing about. You are missing something but I can't figure out what it is. Again, I assume it is your admitted zealotry.

In my research, I use the Open Source Initiative definition of open source. Please note that the word distribution and/or redistribuion appears in seven of its 10 characteristics, including the first (see www.opensource.org/doc...). In two of the three characteristics where the words are not mentioned (the discrimination characteristics, numbers 5 and 6), the subject is clearly about distribution. The concept of distribution appears ahead of the obvious characteristic of open source being source code related, which is only mentioned in two of the 10 characteristics.

That is why we say "The term Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution." Again I point out the word primarily. I did not say exclusively.

I still don't get your point about "free" but try me again and I urge you to email me direct.

Dennis

Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft

Dear Wild-eyed FOSS Zealot.

At least you are honest about your biases. But I believe your zealotry makes you read things that are not in my article and ignore things that are.

If you do not understand why the sentence “Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution" is accurate then it is you who bases your opinion on ignorance. Note that I say "primarily related to redistribution." Most of the investment-research readers of this web site are sophisticated enough to know the obvious link between the word "source" and the phrase "source code" and we don't bog down each other by repeating things.

The rest of your comment is unclear since the original article clearly says there is confusion in the Stanford/Harvard abstract between the words free and open source. So are you re-iterating that or disagreeing with it?

Thanks

Dennis Byron

Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth

Cameron

Thanks for the comment. As Sacha describes above, the idea is to try to figure out what the acquired company did or will do the year after it was acquired. As the blog post notes, lining up the years will never be perfect.

We will never know on JBoss but Red Hat SEC filings indicate its revenue actually declined after it was acquired. As for Qumrannet, the 5X is simply based on the Red Hat press release of September 4, 2008 announcing the deal.

Bigger point: the trend line has gone from unbelievably high to a more normal multiple traditionally assoicated with any young hot software company.

-- Dennis

Red Hat's Latest Acquisition Brings Multiples Back to Earth

User 255819 -

I say there is no such thing as an open source company because open source is a culture and a set of license terms and conditions, neither of which can be used to define a "company," especially one you would want to invest in (which is the point of SA after all).

Every so-called open source company I have looked at (as opposed to a group such as the Apache Software Foundation or the Mozilla Foundation) looks just like every other software business I have ever looked at; it just recognizes its revenue slightly differently (as explained by Sacha in the other comment above). I say slightly differently because even most of the so-called non-open-source software companies (e.g., SAP, Oracle, etc.) recognize most of their "software revenue" as subscriptions in the same way Red Hat does.

Sacha -

I understand your logic but I'm still a Jerry McGuire guy. When I said "we are not able to compare revenue-per-year totally fairly in all these acquisitions because the acquired companies were all private," I could have also added the disclaimer--that I use in my reports--that a total subscription-based revenue model understates market share. But I didn't think it mattered for this analysis because all the companies acquired kept their books this way, no?

So--if I used your method--the multiples are still going down dramatically, just from different highs.

(As for source, I'll send you an email.)

Google's Chrome Sounds Like 1970s Pressure Cooker

RickRusselTX and Captainccs -

Thanks for your comments and I'll take your word for it vis a vis the technical descriptions (skipping over the "disconnected" and "weakly connected" problem your descriptions don't address; for example, Gmail recently).

But this is an investment site, not slashdot. The idea is what will people buy/how will consumers use Chrome. Hence my comments about applications that would need to be ported to the net. Or how else will Google make money (that nice clean Chrome UI will look pretty messy with ads all over it) to make Google a better investment. Tim Armstrong, Google President, Advertising & Commerce, North America (recently picked up responsibility for Latin America as well), spoke Sept 2 at the Citi Technology Conference, and said basically
the idea behind Chrome is to get users to use more Google services but there is no particular business model tied to the browser (or anyone’s browser).
-- Dennis Byron

Google's Chrome Sounds Like 1970s Pressure Cooker

Bob F --
Honestly I tried to read the Google Chrome comic book but because even my cataract-covered, torn-retina eyes can handle more than 17 words at a time, I gave up. I at least expected a few laughs (hence the term, "comic book").
-- Dennis

False Data Clobbers the Markets

Great perspective. However the alternative to not releasing preliminary data is trading by insiders (not necessarily management but just those that know sooner than others). Transparency trumps perfect timing.

In my little niche, the software market, we see a variation all the time. It's not a matter of false data but no data. The pundits say:
-- Microsoft is in an end-game state (except that it is growing as fast or faster than all the other leading software suppliers except Google and is active in all the likely future technology trends, not just Search, leading in some of them)
-- SaaS is taking over the software world (except there is no data to back up that claim even though SasS--nee ASP--has been out there for 10 years, or more depending on how you count)
-- Cloud computing is the next big thing (except it has been around for 50 years)

We Need a Digital Bill of Rights

Eric

Re: your digital bill of rights idea, the current one does the job just fine, thanks.

When you say "We need..." and then talk about the U.S. election, I assume you are talking about the US and not some "oneworld" idea you have blogged about previously. I'm sorry to see such European Union communalism (seekingalpha.com/artic...) infecting SV. So much for starting a company in your garage and waking up one morning with a 12-meter ocean racer in the Bay.

Specifically you say,

"When the economics of scarcity no longer apply, consumers start to behave differently. They copy and reuse content in unforeseen ways. The pendulum has swung so far that normal consumer behavior has now been criminalized."

That's typical EU blogobull. Taking some one else's digitized intellectual property is no different than sneaking into the movie theater through the fire escape or shoplifting in the video store. I agree it's no big deal. But it's wrong.

As for what Amazon and Apple can do with/to content you purchased and put on their service-delivery device is their prerogative. You affirmatively chose to abide by the Ts&Cs of their service. You didn't buy a product from them; drop their service if you object. You can't screw up regular utilities either with some appliance you purchase.

As for net neutrality, I never heard that anyone was proposing to take away the free flow of information. I thought they just want to offer services that make the flow faster if I want to pay for it. I may be wrong on my understanding of the issue but the current laws would protect me given anything I can think of Verizon or Comcast doing. In fact, the bigger risk is the one that you're proposing: letting the government get too involved.

In your last paragraph, it sounds like you want a "do not email" list. Why do we need to change the bill of rights to do that?

Finally nothing is better protected by the current Bill of Rights than privacy. Got an issue; make a federal case out of it. You don't need a new law to do that. By the way, I assume you are not proposing to go through that awkward constitutional protocol of getting your rights enshrined through an amendment.

Supply Chain Management Enterprise Software: And Then There Was None

Bob (User 249699)--

Thanks for the comment

You may be right abou MANH. Terri O'Hanlon, its SVP of Marketing, made a similar comment above so I did not dig deeper. Again, my point is "be careful investing in sectors such as APS that primarily do not standalone as a market" (as illusrated by the way all of these companies were gobbled up) I think EAM may be the next such sector.

I did not do a post on August 12 and do not know MGI Research. This was my only post on JDAS so the article you reference must be elsewhere on SA?

Thanks again

Dennis Byron

Supply Chain Management Enterprise Software: And Then There Was None

Correction: A reader that apparently wants to remain anonymous has contacted me offline to note that Demand Management was acquired by Logility (which in turn is mostly owned by American). So there are basically none left by my analysis or just a few left as described in some of the comments above (for which we say thanks as always) that analyze it slightly differently.

To the question, "So what?," my point might have been lost in all of us waltzing down supply chain's memory lane. My point was that there are some functional software areas that will not support separate companies in which to invest. Spell checking was one year ago. APS was one as described in this post. And I feel EAM might be the next one in that category.

-- Dennis