BlackBerry: A Speculative Stock Poised To Bounce [View article]
No my friend.
Carriers sell the phone at cost since they are philanthropists, also, there is no development costs with the phone that is inherently spread out over every phone. The manufacturers aren't paid for component outsourcing, or logistics consulting and planning either.
FedEx and UPS have also signed a deal with BBRY stating it will ship all z10s and future Blackberry phones for free to phone distribution centers worldwide (think warehouses etc), you can find information on that if you google 'FedEx UPS Blackberry probono deal'. All the customs in the world also don't charge any taxes or excise for importing into the respective countries.
The math is Rogers/Bell price ($650) subtract the estimated raw material price.
Research In Motion Short Sellers Will Not Get A Second Chance [View article]
Your analysis is quite faulty, I'm supportive of RIMM because technology inherently has potential to do 90/180 degree turns quite fast and I've seen the BB10 device personally (the one released to employees - and it's a really similar experience to Android with some caveats).
"100% of the short sellers in recent months are all out of the money" You have no way of knowing this, even through analyzing money flow and short interest - net volume changes will only tell you net figures but doesn't tell you whether it's the same player or a previous short allowing someone else to step in.
As for your 'being bought out by bigger fish' that won't happen anytime soon, and being early on wall street is also being wrong.
Didn't mean to imply IBM would buy up RIM, though they definitely do have their synergies.
RIM's patents with NOC's aren't as old as people think, come London 2012 - I'm thinking there'll be a lot of 'My phone's dead' and 'no signal'
IBM can do software or hardware (it can be just like how Oracle has been considering it strategically but haven't moved) - one thing that RIM got right in BB World 2012 is that the mobile space is not limited to smartphones but mobile computing, mobile will expand to every facet of our lives
I'm not sure why this was a focus article on RIMM, wasn't meant to be
Well, RIM definitely has potential, if you look at the Reddit post by the guy who's worked at the company, it can improve but it's hard and it's unlikely.
The comment about the prototyping was just because a friend of mine works there temporarily. RIM has the abilities, depends on how they use TAT, the acquisitions, etc
ahh ok, I wouldn't consider something like that important for the success of QNX in BB 10, at best, the dev's will like RIM for the power of it and apps might speed up a tweensy bit
as for the UI - a friend of mine who has done prototyping for RIM has said that "cascades blew my head off" and "I used cascades for a month, very fun", I would screen munchiez this from my BBM and post it but it's just an opinion
if you're thinking of network protocol stacks, TCP/IP, FTP, HTTP, HTTPS, the marginal benefit from not needed another layer of software as a go-between is minimal. It really depends on where the devs take the device, an app like Facebook isn't going to benefit from something like this, I think you're thinking too technical here
"PlayBook users will willingly pay for apps. Android users are more inclined for free apps with ads." that's weird but true, Android users are probably least willing to pay among the 3 and Playbook users the most willing to pay.
I didn't talk about music and monetizing it but just about the nature of needs and wants. Chris, you forgot Pandora in that list, which is arguably the best experience anyone can get.
@br14, QNX RTOS is suitable yeah, but not for the same reasons that the military or industry users would use it for. It's all about context
Research in Motion (RIMM +4.1%) pops going into the close on reports that the company is in discussions to hire investment bankers to examine strategic options. [View news story]
"Last time I checked, bankers werent experts on outdated telephones. But their attorneys are helpful in securing a credit line to assist through reorganization...hiring a bank to sell telephones"
lololol
I can't wait until May to start trading with real money, lotta people that follow the herds and are clueless deserve to have their money taken
Do you know what investment bankers do? Have you looked at IPO's other than the media-ized ones?
Why would they need a credit line? What about their "cash"? Last time it was reported around 2B, but you know what, I'll knock off 1B, even then, don't think they need loans anytime soon.
These comments, I don't understand, how someone can be so...
Why Apple Shares Probably Won't Be Hitting $700 Anytime Soon [View article]
Malthusian is not mathematics? The underlying foundations of Economics, it's not demand and supply, it's math. MBA's and PhD's in Econ must have taken regression, analytics, and probability courses - and not just some joke first year calculus (think econometrics). Economics just has the convenience of applying math where it wants to.
The coin toss example doesn't work for this situation because you get binary, whereas the dice does. If the industry has historically grown at 3.5 (even being adjusted for inflation, growth rates, penetration rates - which is quite impossible to do accurately or will have huge variances), and a company i.e. Apple comes out stellar for the past x quarters with rates around 5 or 6, it does raise a few eyebrows. The biggest problem with the preceding argument is that we assume the industry's expected growth is 3.5 - which realistically should be continuously changing like the exponential moving average compared to simple.
The LLN is being misapplied exactly for such reasons, but Math is extremely effective in predicting a lot of things, the timescale is a lot bigger than suitable for something like investing (say 3-6 months), because there isn't anything to capture nuances. It doesn't help that it is being used like a buzzword to make someones argument seem more convincing.
I'm in a math undergraduate program, with pure math courses. I don't need to study Bernoulli and LLN, I could write you the proofs and development of his propositions, lemmas and theorems.
If your consulting is anything like my internship, I doubt the conversations lasted more than 10 minutes and included pen and paper.
I wasn't going to comment on the author's -completely- incorrect usage, but your -slightly incorrect- explanation was well written but a tad factually wrong, which is why I wanted to point something out.
There are no problems with applying math to markets per se, but the results are skewed because people see what they want to see (if they even correctly applied it in the first place), and the model is only a framework, not an equation.
Why Apple Shares Probably Won't Be Hitting $700 Anytime Soon [View article]
I'm curious if you know exactly how the LLN is being applied to stocks and companies (it certainly doesn't include dice). Do you have a math degree?
The LLN is useful in the sense that it takes other companies in the industry and their growth and other numbers to get a rough estimate - your dice example does not work here... because a company is not a dice and we don't know what the expected value is.
If I were to show you pictures numbers (which were actually based on dice rolls - that you didn't know about). If the first 9 shown is either 5 or 6, you'd assume the average to be 5.5 - you even hope for a 7. There's imperfect information here - had I told you the numbers were based on dice, you would know the average to be 3.5. It is unlikely to continue to be either 5 or 6 everytime (unless they were arranged or simply 2/6). Economists and other non-math people use LLN by looking back into history and other examples. Yes. Growth at that point in time was phenomenal (unlike any seen before), it was unimaginable that a company could hit a $x Billion market cap, Microsoft having a 95% dominance over the PC industry, etc.
Just like how each financial crisis has been worse and more globally widespread and felt than the last one.
If your understanding of math models extend only to Malthusian - that's analogous to saying you can do valuations because you can do Price to Earnings calculations.
BlackBerry: A Speculative Stock Poised To Bounce [View article]
Carriers sell the phone at cost since they are philanthropists, also, there is no development costs with the phone that is inherently spread out over every phone. The manufacturers aren't paid for component outsourcing, or logistics consulting and planning either.
FedEx and UPS have also signed a deal with BBRY stating it will ship all z10s and future Blackberry phones for free to phone distribution centers worldwide (think warehouses etc), you can find information on that if you google 'FedEx UPS Blackberry probono deal'. All the customs in the world also don't charge any taxes or excise for importing into the respective countries.
The math is Rogers/Bell price ($650) subtract the estimated raw material price.
BlackBerry: A Speculative Stock Poised To Bounce [View article]
"A gross profit in dollar terms would be roughly $446 per phone"
lol.
Research In Motion Short Sellers Will Not Get A Second Chance [View article]
"100% of the short sellers in recent months are all out of the money" You have no way of knowing this, even through analyzing money flow and short interest - net volume changes will only tell you net figures but doesn't tell you whether it's the same player or a previous short allowing someone else to step in.
As for your 'being bought out by bigger fish' that won't happen anytime soon, and being early on wall street is also being wrong.
Technology Patent Wars [View article]
RIM's patents with NOC's aren't as old as people think, come London 2012 - I'm thinking there'll be a lot of 'My phone's dead' and 'no signal'
IBM can do software or hardware (it can be just like how Oracle has been considering it strategically but haven't moved) - one thing that RIM got right in BB World 2012 is that the mobile space is not limited to smartphones but mobile computing, mobile will expand to every facet of our lives
I'm not sure why this was a focus article on RIMM, wasn't meant to be
RIM: The 'Is' And 'Is Not' Of QNX [View article]
The comment about the prototyping was just because a friend of mine works there temporarily. RIM has the abilities, depends on how they use TAT, the acquisitions, etc
RIM: The 'Is' And 'Is Not' Of QNX [View article]
as for the UI - a friend of mine who has done prototyping for RIM has said that "cascades blew my head off" and "I used cascades for a month, very fun", I would screen munchiez this from my BBM and post it but it's just an opinion
RIM: The 'Is' And 'Is Not' Of QNX [View article]
RIM: The 'Is' And 'Is Not' Of QNX [View article]
I didn't talk about music and monetizing it but just about the nature of needs and wants. Chris, you forgot Pandora in that list, which is arguably the best experience anyone can get.
@br14, QNX RTOS is suitable yeah, but not for the same reasons that the military or industry users would use it for. It's all about context
Yuan Takes Next Step To Free Floating Currency [View article]
It can't sustain it in immediacy and in 10/20 years, there will be some sort of Asian currency bloc - though not another implementation of the Euro
Pending Iran Military Action And The Historical Effect Of Wars On The U.S. Dollar [View article]
Research in Motion (RIMM +4.1%) pops going into the close on reports that the company is in discussions to hire investment bankers to examine strategic options. [View news story]
lololol
I can't wait until May to start trading with real money, lotta people that follow the herds and are clueless deserve to have their money taken
Do you know what investment bankers do? Have you looked at IPO's other than the media-ized ones?
Why would they need a credit line? What about their "cash"? Last time it was reported around 2B, but you know what, I'll knock off 1B, even then, don't think they need loans anytime soon.
These comments, I don't understand, how someone can be so...
As AOL Sells Patents, Is There A Play For Research In Motion? [View article]
RIM: Struggling To Hold On [View article]
I don't understand, I would never compare my desktop to a laptop - would you?
Why Apple Shares Probably Won't Be Hitting $700 Anytime Soon [View article]
The coin toss example doesn't work for this situation because you get binary, whereas the dice does. If the industry has historically grown at 3.5 (even being adjusted for inflation, growth rates, penetration rates - which is quite impossible to do accurately or will have huge variances), and a company i.e. Apple comes out stellar for the past x quarters with rates around 5 or 6, it does raise a few eyebrows. The biggest problem with the preceding argument is that we assume the industry's expected growth is 3.5 - which realistically should be continuously changing like the exponential moving average compared to simple.
The LLN is being misapplied exactly for such reasons, but Math is extremely effective in predicting a lot of things, the timescale is a lot bigger than suitable for something like investing (say 3-6 months), because there isn't anything to capture nuances. It doesn't help that it is being used like a buzzword to make someones argument seem more convincing.
I'm in a math undergraduate program, with pure math courses. I don't need to study Bernoulli and LLN, I could write you the proofs and development of his propositions, lemmas and theorems.
If your consulting is anything like my internship, I doubt the conversations lasted more than 10 minutes and included pen and paper.
I wasn't going to comment on the author's -completely- incorrect usage, but your -slightly incorrect- explanation was well written but a tad factually wrong, which is why I wanted to point something out.
There are no problems with applying math to markets per se, but the results are skewed because people see what they want to see (if they even correctly applied it in the first place), and the model is only a framework, not an equation.
Why Apple Shares Probably Won't Be Hitting $700 Anytime Soon [View article]
The LLN is useful in the sense that it takes other companies in the industry and their growth and other numbers to get a rough estimate - your dice example does not work here... because a company is not a dice and we don't know what the expected value is.
If I were to show you pictures numbers (which were actually based on dice rolls - that you didn't know about). If the first 9 shown is either 5 or 6, you'd assume the average to be 5.5 - you even hope for a 7. There's imperfect information here - had I told you the numbers were based on dice, you would know the average to be 3.5. It is unlikely to continue to be either 5 or 6 everytime (unless they were arranged or simply 2/6). Economists and other non-math people use LLN by looking back into history and other examples. Yes. Growth at that point in time was phenomenal (unlike any seen before), it was unimaginable that a company could hit a $x Billion market cap, Microsoft having a 95% dominance over the PC industry, etc.
Just like how each financial crisis has been worse and more globally widespread and felt than the last one.
If your understanding of math models extend only to Malthusian - that's analogous to saying you can do valuations because you can do Price to Earnings calculations.