Excellent article with a clear articulation of some interesting issues.
However, I would add that rather than just an outside director, Apple should have a director from outside of America. For too long, Apple has been an 'American Company' and it needs to take its innovation to growth markets like India/China.
Synaptics Diversifies Product Range and Rides the Smart Phone Wave [View article]
Atmel and Cypress Semiconductor supplies some SoC(semiconductor components) for touchscreens. But Im not aware any other large touchscreen vendor other than Synaptics and I feel that Synaptics is a major vendor for Apple and HTC
On Aug 12 10:27 AM Stefan_S_Sweden wrote:
> great article Naveen!! How about competition? Are there any other > companies offering the same kind of solutions / technology (touchpads) > ??? Do you know if Synaptics is inside the latest and upcoming models > from the big handset makers? Samsung, SonyEricsson, LG, Iphone etc > ?? > > > Stefan > Sweden
Akamai: Short of Expectations, But Long-Term Growth Story Remains Intact [View article]
you are right.The number of customers or revenue per customer might not be strictly comparable but other financial metrics are. I just wanted to highlight the disparity in valuing two companies which operate in the same space. I did'nt want to do a product/service comparison because the in a dynamic space like Internet Services, the definition of products/services and what it constitutes will keep changing!!
On Jul 30 10:21 AM Dan Rayburn wrote:
> How can you possibly think you are doing a fair comparison from Akamai > to Liemlight in the number of customers they have and the revenue > per customer when we know that Akamai sells services that Limelight > does not offer? You can only compare Akamai's CDN business to Limelight's > CDN business, and since we don't know how many customers Akamai has > for CDN, what percentage of their revenue comes from CDN, or how > many customers take multiple services outside of CDN, you can't compare > the two companies. You can only compare the CDN product, not the > company.
EMC's Data Domain Acquisition: A Sign of Desperation [View article]
I agree. But making expensive acquisitions is not the way out,especially during a downturn. So, my argument is that EMC should acquire -but not at any cost.
On Jul 28 08:55 AM tkane90 wrote:
> This analysis needs to be done in a way that compares other players > in the industry over the same time period. For the past twelve months > we've been in a gobal recession (hello!) and most companies in the > tech sector are struggling regardless of the business strategy. > The real question is about how well placed EMC is today versus competitors > to take advantage of a spending upswing when the economy rebounds. > Any thoughts on that? > -tk
Mobile Phone Market Share Relative to Profits [View article]
Atleast in India(Nokia sells a lot of phones in India). Nokia has a clear lead over Samsung, LG et all in terms of quality. Consumer generally are willing to pay a premium for Nokia over other mobile phone brands. So even if Nokia might lack in product innovation, they have a strong reputation for quality in low-cost phones too!
It would be interesting to see what happens when Apple/RIM becomes more aggressive and reduces their sticker prices.
How Does Accenture Today Compare to Post Dot-Com Bust? [View article]
You are right. The conclusions could have been more precise or done away with. My intention was to only compare and I should have stopped at that.
On Jun 27 01:24 AM Amit Jindal wrote:
> I am difficulty understanding how the comparison between now and > then led to the conclusions. These conclusions could have been achieved > even without the comparison.
How Does Accenture Today Compare to Post Dot-Com Bust? [View article]
As mentioned in the article, Accenture includes a host of services(SI etc) in Consulting. So what I mean by Consulting growth is not vanilla business/IT strategy consulting but all these services combined.
On Jun 27 10:56 AM Bandwagon2009 wrote:
> The conclusion in this article seems to ignore the cultural buying > habits of APAC region -- while consulting can certainly provide higher > value (=margins), there is pre-disposition by clients in some Asian > countries for not wanting to pay for pure "consulting". Firms > like ACN might be able to bundle "solutions" which include a combo > of products and services -- and certainly there are some large scale > government spoonsored SI projects in India and other countries that > ACN could go after...in most cases a local tie up / JV is necessary. > A BOT approach might be a better idea.
There are definitely a few positives in Bing(over Google/Yahoo) and so some of the Bing usage would HAVE TO be attributed to that.
Assuming that people are 'unwittingly' forced to search on Bing, are they staying and continuing to use Bing or are they going back to Google Search. That is the million-dollar question
Virtualization Out, Expense Management In [View article]
Thank you for your comments, Delaland. I probably should have clarified that what I meant by 'Virtualization' is all 'forms' of virtualization(if I may so) i.e Server, Application, Desktop etc.
I know that in a jargon-filled industry like Tech, we tend to get carried away by such jargon and many companies also 'piggy-back' on the latest fad and classify their product under the same . Your comments have made me inquisitive enough to try and unravel this jargon. Let me attempt that!
On Jun 04 10:44 AM Delaland wrote:
> Naveen: > > I am virtually (no oun intended) certain, that the 'virtualization' > license revnues that Cirix is providing/reporting during this period > is NOT hypervisor license revenue. Its their core product which, > in a nutshell, vitualizes applications, such that you don't incurr > desktop licensing fees (short version explanation). XEN is the technology > they acquired when they bought Xen Source ( only 1/1/2 years ago), > and that is the competing hypervisor technology with VMware, hyper > V (microsoft), et. al. If you go to their website, the first thing > you see is they offer Xen for free, using the Linnux Open-souce model. > Ask Citrix for those numbers (Xen license adoption) and I'll guarantee > it is growing at a fast pace. VMware, on the otherhand, licenses > ESX for between $4K and $5K per 2-socket server. Their revenue growth > may be declining because there are simply many more hypervisors in > the market to compete against (Oracle, Microsoft, Citrix), where > they were the only player years back. Plus, they compete against > 'free' in many instances, certainly with Citrix. Hypervisors will > eventually be a commodity. But the adoption across the industry > is anything but slowing.
Virtualization Out, Expense Management In [View article]
Thanks for your comments. However, I disagree that since there is more hypervisor adoption, the industry is doing well. If they are not able to monetize these 'adoptions' now, how can we be so sure that monetization of all these adoptions will surely happen. further please refer the data(sourced from company filings) which Citrix has reported the following as application virtualization revenue in their own filings:
you will get the 06/07/08 'App virtualization' revenue from their 2008 10-K filings( Page F-30). So even in FY06, quarterly run rate was >$200M for App virtualization.
On Jun 03 11:04 AM Delaland wrote:
> Mr. Selvaraj's data is way off base. First, he shows enourmous license > revenue for Citrix since 2006, along with a recent declining growth > of that license revenue. The fact is that Citrix only bought XEN, > the hypervisor virtualization software Citix now sells, in 2008, > and it did so for $500M. But XEN annual revenue to that point was > only $5M!!! If his chart showed only the growth of Xen license adoption, > instead of all of CItrix's software product sales, it would show > enormous growth. Plus Citix Xen license model is the same as Linux; > i.e. license is free, (for a few months this was not true, but it > is now) you only pay for annual support, so there are no 'license' > revenues to report. Finally, other comapnies have jumped in with > their own hypervisor vitualization products, like Oracle and Microsft. > Between Citrix (Xen), Oracle, MS, Virtual Iron (bought by Oracle), > and others, their license growth more than makes up for the decline > in VMware. The reason VMware growth has declined, is they are competing > aginst more products, and competing against in some cases 'free products'. > The assertion that overall hypervisor virtualization software user > adoption (note I did not say license revenue), is slowing or on the > same pace as declining server sales is rediculous.
Very valid comments, Huskar. As I has mentioned, Cognizant's short term advantage remains due to 3 reasons and not just $ strength.
But Cognizant has talked of 'superior' client engagement as a business differentiator for more than 4-5 years(their SG&A % spend validates that). But the gap in terms of Revenue per client(With Wipro and Infosys) remains and this is not just the efffect of recession but the effect of business model(more maintenance revenue). The gap is getting bigger in terms of operating profit per client between Cognizant and Infosys. So finally, if we are interested in 'absolute' profit dollars earned per client, Infosys has actually performed better during the last 2-3 quarters.
But I want to EMPHASIZE that my opinion is also that short-term advantages for Cognizant remains.
On May 14 10:43 PM Huskarl wrote:
> Naveen - You have established that Cognizant has added a significant > number of clients recently and is almost close to Infosys in that > respect. Is that not a reason by itself for revenue per client to > be lower? > Clients can be added overnight but generating revenue out of them > takes time. Naturally during the initial phases, the revenue per > client is going to be lower as your client base has increased significantly > but revenue is yet to show up. Add a recession and this makes revenue > accretion even slower. > But through superior client engagement, Cognizant can, over time, > generate that revenue with these new clients. An Infy or Wipro will > not be able to do that as they are not investing in building client > engagement. > With half the base of Infosys and one third that of TCS, Cognizant > has added more revenue in 2008 in absolute terms (and not percentage > terms). Clearly this cannot be because of dollar strengthening. >
Oracle CEO to IBM, HP: Don't Get Your Hopes Up, We're Keeping Sun's Hardware [View article]
Oracle has hardly shown any innovation in its bread and butter business - database and applications. It has largely grown on the strength of its acquisitions in the last 3-4 years.
So expecting them to drive innovation in the SPARC business is a little far fetched. Are they going to do a better job than HP or IBM which have been at it(Silicon to Software) for years. Unlikely!
Synaptics Diversifies Product Range and Rides the Smart Phone Wave [View article]
Very true. In fact their 'touch' screen design wins could help them for such similar interfaces in PC monitors/netbooks etc. What one needs to watchout in the PC segment is that total market size could remain flat while market share could change among the vendors. This in turn could lead to lesser margins.
On May 01 10:14 PM Chad Gray wrote:
> Don't forget the netbook trend. If unit volumes in this new form > factor take off as many trend-watchers are prognosticating, SYNA > may see revitalized PC segment growth along with their handheld design > wins.
Apple: Three Battles Won, Nicely Positioned for the Fourth [View article]
Thanks for the comments,Moon.
All I'm saying is that Apple is among the select few companies which can claim that all their major business lines are successful and more profitable than peers at that. I feel that iTunes will shortly become their fourth.
I disagree that its one sided stock hyping for there was never a argument to buy Apple stock but the argument was to admire Apple for the way it has built its businesses. And when they look set to build another business into significant size, why not highlight that?
If you actually wanted to disagree that Apple doesn't have all that great business lines, then the cost-cutting and other arguments that you put forth are not relevant. Can I see Apple making profits in all these product/business lines even after 3-4 years? Yes I do. Will they make more money that they do now? I don't know and I never wanted to answer that in the article.
On Apr 24 03:53 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> My take. According to filings Apple dropped its employees 10% from > 15,600 to 14,000 and is currently under consolidation. It's margins > rose due to cost cutting and a revenue mix shifting from hardware > sales to software which means less market share gains. > > Looking at Apple to total PC shipments make more sense than comparing > them with HP and Dell which they are loosing market share. This makes > sense since Apple sells at a premium and we are in a recession.<br/> > > One can see positives as well as negatives in this filing. Cost cutting > is not bad if management is honest about it. Expanding into China > this year is a positive if Apple is honest about it combating expected > domestic sales. Choosing not to get into Net books is fine if you > think it undermines your value proposition with 13" Macbooks and > iPhones around that price and functionality area. Dissing netbooks > for no good reason isn't so intelligent. Apple should be happy it's > computers sell for a premium and commit to those price points even > if it looses market share. Jobs was always clear it was not his intention > to try to become 20 or 30% of marketshare. > > The fact that Apple sells its iPods in Wal-Mart is unsettling for > a few reasons 1) it doesn't fit their demographic niche, 2) it doesn't > ring brand value, 3) it sounds like a good place to dump, and 4) > shows Jobs is utterly absent in making corporate decisions there > anymore. > > So yes, Apple had a nice quarter but it doesn't smell like victory > to me. > > I don't own or short Apple. I'm a fan of their products but don't > like one sided stock hyping.
Apple: Three Battles Won, Nicely Positioned for the Fourth [View article]
Thanks for the comments,Moon.
All I'm saying is that Apple is among the select few companies which can claim that all their major business lines are successful and more profitable than peers at that. I feel that iTunes will shortly become their fourth.
I disagree that its one sided stock hyping for there was never a argument to buy Apple stock but the argument was to admire Apple for the way it has built its businesses. And when they look set to build another business into significant size, why not highlight that?
If you actually wanted to disagree that Apple doesn't have all that great business lines, then the cost-cutting and other arguments that you put forth are not relevant. Can I see Apple making profits in all these product/business lines even after 3-4 years? Yes I do. Will they make more money that they do now? I don't know and I never wanted to answer that in the article.
On Apr 24 03:53 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> My take. According to filings Apple dropped its employees 10% from > 15,600 to 14,000 and is currently under consolidation. It's margins > rose due to cost cutting and a revenue mix shifting from hardware > sales to software which means less market share gains. > > Looking at Apple to total PC shipments make more sense than comparing > them with HP and Dell which they are loosing market share. This makes > sense since Apple sells at a premium and we are in a recession.<br/> > > One can see positives as well as negatives in this filing. Cost cutting > is not bad if management is honest about it. Expanding into China > this year is a positive if Apple is honest about it combating expected > domestic sales. Choosing not to get into Net books is fine if you > think it undermines your value proposition with 13" Macbooks and > iPhones around that price and functionality area. Dissing netbooks > for no good reason isn't so intelligent. Apple should be happy it's > computers sell for a premium and commit to those price points even > if it looses market share. Jobs was always clear it was not his intention > to try to become 20 or 30% of marketshare. > > The fact that Apple sells its iPods in Wal-Mart is unsettling for > a few reasons 1) it doesn't fit their demographic niche, 2) it doesn't > ring brand value, 3) it sounds like a good place to dump, and 4) > shows Jobs is utterly absent in making corporate decisions there > anymore. > > So yes, Apple had a nice quarter but it doesn't smell like victory > to me. > > I don't own or short Apple. I'm a fan of their products but don't > like one sided stock hyping.
Apple Needs Outside Director [View article]
However, I would add that rather than just an outside director, Apple should have a director from outside of America. For too long, Apple has been an 'American Company' and it needs to take its innovation to growth markets like India/China.
Synaptics Diversifies Product Range and Rides the Smart Phone Wave [View article]
On Aug 12 10:27 AM Stefan_S_Sweden wrote:
> great article Naveen!! How about competition? Are there any other
> companies offering the same kind of solutions / technology (touchpads)
> ??? Do you know if Synaptics is inside the latest and upcoming models
> from the big handset makers? Samsung, SonyEricsson, LG, Iphone etc
> ??
>
>
> Stefan
> Sweden
Akamai: Short of Expectations, But Long-Term Growth Story Remains Intact [View article]
On Jul 30 10:21 AM Dan Rayburn wrote:
> How can you possibly think you are doing a fair comparison from Akamai
> to Liemlight in the number of customers they have and the revenue
> per customer when we know that Akamai sells services that Limelight
> does not offer? You can only compare Akamai's CDN business to Limelight's
> CDN business, and since we don't know how many customers Akamai has
> for CDN, what percentage of their revenue comes from CDN, or how
> many customers take multiple services outside of CDN, you can't compare
> the two companies. You can only compare the CDN product, not the
> company.
EMC's Data Domain Acquisition: A Sign of Desperation [View article]
On Jul 28 08:55 AM tkane90 wrote:
> This analysis needs to be done in a way that compares other players
> in the industry over the same time period. For the past twelve months
> we've been in a gobal recession (hello!) and most companies in the
> tech sector are struggling regardless of the business strategy.
> The real question is about how well placed EMC is today versus competitors
> to take advantage of a spending upswing when the economy rebounds.
> Any thoughts on that?
> -tk
Mobile Phone Market Share Relative to Profits [View article]
It would be interesting to see what happens when Apple/RIM becomes more aggressive and reduces their sticker prices.
How Does Accenture Today Compare to Post Dot-Com Bust? [View article]
On Jun 27 01:24 AM Amit Jindal wrote:
> I am difficulty understanding how the comparison between now and
> then led to the conclusions. These conclusions could have been achieved
> even without the comparison.
How Does Accenture Today Compare to Post Dot-Com Bust? [View article]
On Jun 27 10:56 AM Bandwagon2009 wrote:
> The conclusion in this article seems to ignore the cultural buying
> habits of APAC region -- while consulting can certainly provide higher
> value (=margins), there is pre-disposition by clients in some Asian
> countries for not wanting to pay for pure "consulting". Firms
> like ACN might be able to bundle "solutions" which include a combo
> of products and services -- and certainly there are some large scale
> government spoonsored SI projects in India and other countries that
> ACN could go after...in most cases a local tie up / JV is necessary.
> A BOT approach might be a better idea.
The Great Bing Scam [View article]
Assuming that people are 'unwittingly' forced to search on Bing, are they staying and continuing to use Bing or are they going back to Google Search. That is the million-dollar question
Virtualization Out, Expense Management In [View article]
I know that in a jargon-filled industry like Tech, we tend to get carried away by such jargon and many companies also 'piggy-back' on the latest fad and classify their product under the same . Your comments have made me inquisitive enough to try and unravel this jargon. Let me attempt that!
On Jun 04 10:44 AM Delaland wrote:
> Naveen:
>
> I am virtually (no oun intended) certain, that the 'virtualization'
> license revnues that Cirix is providing/reporting during this period
> is NOT hypervisor license revenue. Its their core product which,
> in a nutshell, vitualizes applications, such that you don't incurr
> desktop licensing fees (short version explanation). XEN is the technology
> they acquired when they bought Xen Source ( only 1/1/2 years ago),
> and that is the competing hypervisor technology with VMware, hyper
> V (microsoft), et. al. If you go to their website, the first thing
> you see is they offer Xen for free, using the Linnux Open-souce model.
> Ask Citrix for those numbers (Xen license adoption) and I'll guarantee
> it is growing at a fast pace. VMware, on the otherhand, licenses
> ESX for between $4K and $5K per 2-socket server. Their revenue growth
> may be declining because there are simply many more hypervisors in
> the market to compete against (Oracle, Microsoft, Citrix), where
> they were the only player years back. Plus, they compete against
> 'free' in many instances, certainly with Citrix. Hypervisors will
> eventually be a commodity. But the adoption across the industry
> is anything but slowing.
Virtualization Out, Expense Management In [View article]
FY04 - $696.8M
FY05-$776M
FY06-$871M
FY07-$998M
Fy08-$1081M
you will get the 06/07/08 'App virtualization' revenue from their 2008 10-K filings( Page F-30). So even in FY06, quarterly run rate was >$200M for App virtualization.
On Jun 03 11:04 AM Delaland wrote:
> Mr. Selvaraj's data is way off base. First, he shows enourmous license
> revenue for Citrix since 2006, along with a recent declining growth
> of that license revenue. The fact is that Citrix only bought XEN,
> the hypervisor virtualization software Citix now sells, in 2008,
> and it did so for $500M. But XEN annual revenue to that point was
> only $5M!!! If his chart showed only the growth of Xen license adoption,
> instead of all of CItrix's software product sales, it would show
> enormous growth. Plus Citix Xen license model is the same as Linux;
> i.e. license is free, (for a few months this was not true, but it
> is now) you only pay for annual support, so there are no 'license'
> revenues to report. Finally, other comapnies have jumped in with
> their own hypervisor vitualization products, like Oracle and Microsft.
> Between Citrix (Xen), Oracle, MS, Virtual Iron (bought by Oracle),
> and others, their license growth more than makes up for the decline
> in VMware. The reason VMware growth has declined, is they are competing
> aginst more products, and competing against in some cases 'free products'.
> The assertion that overall hypervisor virtualization software user
> adoption (note I did not say license revenue), is slowing or on the
> same pace as declining server sales is rediculous.
What's Behind Cognizant's Outperformance? [View article]
But Cognizant has talked of 'superior' client engagement as a business differentiator for more than 4-5 years(their SG&A % spend validates that). But the gap in terms of Revenue per client(With Wipro and Infosys) remains and this is not just the efffect of recession but the effect of business model(more maintenance revenue). The gap is getting bigger in terms of operating profit per client between Cognizant and Infosys. So finally, if we are interested in 'absolute' profit dollars earned per client, Infosys has actually performed better during the last 2-3 quarters.
But I want to EMPHASIZE that my opinion is also that short-term advantages for Cognizant remains.
On May 14 10:43 PM Huskarl wrote:
> Naveen - You have established that Cognizant has added a significant
> number of clients recently and is almost close to Infosys in that
> respect. Is that not a reason by itself for revenue per client to
> be lower?
> Clients can be added overnight but generating revenue out of them
> takes time. Naturally during the initial phases, the revenue per
> client is going to be lower as your client base has increased significantly
> but revenue is yet to show up. Add a recession and this makes revenue
> accretion even slower.
> But through superior client engagement, Cognizant can, over time,
> generate that revenue with these new clients. An Infy or Wipro will
> not be able to do that as they are not investing in building client
> engagement.
> With half the base of Infosys and one third that of TCS, Cognizant
> has added more revenue in 2008 in absolute terms (and not percentage
> terms). Clearly this cannot be because of dollar strengthening.
>
Oracle CEO to IBM, HP: Don't Get Your Hopes Up, We're Keeping Sun's Hardware [View article]
So expecting them to drive innovation in the SPARC business is a little far fetched. Are they going to do a better job than HP or IBM which have been at it(Silicon to Software) for years. Unlikely!
Larry's sales talk is just that - sales talk!
Synaptics Diversifies Product Range and Rides the Smart Phone Wave [View article]
On May 01 10:14 PM Chad Gray wrote:
> Don't forget the netbook trend. If unit volumes in this new form
> factor take off as many trend-watchers are prognosticating, SYNA
> may see revitalized PC segment growth along with their handheld design
> wins.
Apple: Three Battles Won, Nicely Positioned for the Fourth [View article]
All I'm saying is that Apple is among the select few companies which can claim that all their major business lines are successful and more profitable than peers at that. I feel that iTunes will shortly become their fourth.
I disagree that its one sided stock hyping for there was never a argument to buy Apple stock but the argument was to admire Apple for the way it has built its businesses. And when they look set to build another business into significant size, why not highlight that?
If you actually wanted to disagree that Apple doesn't have all that great business lines, then the cost-cutting and other arguments that you put forth are not relevant. Can I see Apple making profits in all these product/business lines even after 3-4 years? Yes I do. Will they make more money that they do now? I don't know and I never wanted to answer that in the article.
On Apr 24 03:53 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> My take. According to filings Apple dropped its employees 10% from
> 15,600 to 14,000 and is currently under consolidation. It's margins
> rose due to cost cutting and a revenue mix shifting from hardware
> sales to software which means less market share gains.
>
> Looking at Apple to total PC shipments make more sense than comparing
> them with HP and Dell which they are loosing market share. This makes
> sense since Apple sells at a premium and we are in a recession.<br/>
>
> One can see positives as well as negatives in this filing. Cost cutting
> is not bad if management is honest about it. Expanding into China
> this year is a positive if Apple is honest about it combating expected
> domestic sales. Choosing not to get into Net books is fine if you
> think it undermines your value proposition with 13" Macbooks and
> iPhones around that price and functionality area. Dissing netbooks
> for no good reason isn't so intelligent. Apple should be happy it's
> computers sell for a premium and commit to those price points even
> if it looses market share. Jobs was always clear it was not his intention
> to try to become 20 or 30% of marketshare.
>
> The fact that Apple sells its iPods in Wal-Mart is unsettling for
> a few reasons 1) it doesn't fit their demographic niche, 2) it doesn't
> ring brand value, 3) it sounds like a good place to dump, and 4)
> shows Jobs is utterly absent in making corporate decisions there
> anymore.
>
> So yes, Apple had a nice quarter but it doesn't smell like victory
> to me.
>
> I don't own or short Apple. I'm a fan of their products but don't
> like one sided stock hyping.
Apple: Three Battles Won, Nicely Positioned for the Fourth [View article]
All I'm saying is that Apple is among the select few companies which can claim that all their major business lines are successful and more profitable than peers at that. I feel that iTunes will shortly become their fourth.
I disagree that its one sided stock hyping for there was never a argument to buy Apple stock but the argument was to admire Apple for the way it has built its businesses. And when they look set to build another business into significant size, why not highlight that?
If you actually wanted to disagree that Apple doesn't have all that great business lines, then the cost-cutting and other arguments that you put forth are not relevant. Can I see Apple making profits in all these product/business lines even after 3-4 years? Yes I do. Will they make more money that they do now? I don't know and I never wanted to answer that in the article.
On Apr 24 03:53 AM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> My take. According to filings Apple dropped its employees 10% from
> 15,600 to 14,000 and is currently under consolidation. It's margins
> rose due to cost cutting and a revenue mix shifting from hardware
> sales to software which means less market share gains.
>
> Looking at Apple to total PC shipments make more sense than comparing
> them with HP and Dell which they are loosing market share. This makes
> sense since Apple sells at a premium and we are in a recession.<br/>
>
> One can see positives as well as negatives in this filing. Cost cutting
> is not bad if management is honest about it. Expanding into China
> this year is a positive if Apple is honest about it combating expected
> domestic sales. Choosing not to get into Net books is fine if you
> think it undermines your value proposition with 13" Macbooks and
> iPhones around that price and functionality area. Dissing netbooks
> for no good reason isn't so intelligent. Apple should be happy it's
> computers sell for a premium and commit to those price points even
> if it looses market share. Jobs was always clear it was not his intention
> to try to become 20 or 30% of marketshare.
>
> The fact that Apple sells its iPods in Wal-Mart is unsettling for
> a few reasons 1) it doesn't fit their demographic niche, 2) it doesn't
> ring brand value, 3) it sounds like a good place to dump, and 4)
> shows Jobs is utterly absent in making corporate decisions there
> anymore.
>
> So yes, Apple had a nice quarter but it doesn't smell like victory
> to me.
>
> I don't own or short Apple. I'm a fan of their products but don't
> like one sided stock hyping.