Scott Berry

The Downside to iPhone Success

Well, for my idea to be impossible, it seems at least one of the following have to be true:

1. Apple is perfect and never allows anything *that could be susceptible to* a virus get through its store.

2. No iPhone ever accesses any content from any other iPhone or the Internet that might be used to infect a susceptible app or phone.

So which one is it? My point was simply that more phones + more apps + more connectivity = more viruses. It also means the virus is likely to be more widespread.

The Downside to iPhone Success

Wow, I haven't made so many friends since I suggested maybe WiMax wasn't the savior of mankind after all...

Good feedback from a few here. Others maybe ought to more carefully read what I read, and take off your AAPL-tinted shades. I'm not attacking the brilliance of Jobs or his engineers. Though I'm continually dismayed at the thin skins on some of his fans.

Frankly, I have nothing but respect for Apple's design and usability. In fact I said that. The point remains that no matter how good it is, they are now a MUCH bigger target (the iPhone, not Macs). And hackers aren't only interested in kudos or in attacking "affluent" markets. Just ask any of the many whose PCs have been co-opted to become spam generators.

Nowhere did I say hacking iPhones would be as easy as Windows, nor did I say it would be easy at all. Only that it would happen.

I also didn't state that anyone would be attacking the App store directly (though I suppose I did imply it, and am happy to be educated here) . There could be other entry points, particularly as people start using "non-certified" apps on unlocked phones. Regardless, there *will* be viruses striking iPhones. How frequent, how damaging, and how easy all remain to be seen. To suggest otherwise just isn't sensible.

And last, I'm not "pro-RIM" or "pro-Android" and "anti-Apple". Reread what I said. I expect Android to be much more vulnerable to viruses for the exact reason many commenters said--lack of central control of the market. However, there is no scale in either RIM or Android (yet).

I do believe strongly that there are disadvantages to Apple's closed ecosystem(s), but most of them accrue to users and to the device market, not so much to Apple's business. If the iPhone continues on the growth track that is making my thesis more likely, that can't help but improve AAPL's stock price, despite fallout from any virus issues.

7 Reasons I Switched to Google's Chrome

You should have spent as much time researching Firefox as you did Chrome, since basically all of the functionality (and way more) has been available via extensions for some time.

And I echo others about the browser vs. OS. When Chrome can manage all my peripherals and print jobs, then we'll talk.

Happy Customers Don't Change Their Web Browsers

I agree with you, and violently disagree with Maney. People *do* customize and personalize their browsers. My Firefox contains login and password info in the cache for dozens of sites, and I also have a favorite theme/skin and 10-12 extentions that I refuse to live without--many of which perform functions only now being touted in Chrome or IE8. Changing would be a big hassle and would thus require a compelling reason. Chrome doesn't qualify.

WiMax Empire Poses Continual Threat to the AT&T Network

Everyone here seems to be missing a critical distinction. While there have been some modest successes in WiMax so far, they've all been fixed wireless. No one has (to my knowledge) deployed a successful *mobile* WiMax network--successful in the sense of operation or profitability. There is no 3-year head start over LTE here.

As for Sprint/Clearwire, the latter has mostly been focused on slower 1-2 Mb/s fixed and nomadic deployments, to decidedly mixed customer reviews. Sprint is 8-12 months behind their initial WiMax deployment plans, and that's before the distraction that is being caused by the joint venture.

I suspect both technologies will coexist eventually and perhaps complement each other in some ways. But it's not a slam dunk for WiMax by ANY indication.

Internet Content in Crisis: Are We Becoming Mental Grasshoppers?

Couldn't resist here. Individual people don't "evolve" to cope with anything, at least not in a Darwinian sense. But the misconception that we do is exactly the kind of thing an absence of deep thinking and rigorous evaluation can lead to.

I disagree with much of the "google..stupid" article. If people are losing their ability to concentrate and focus because of information snacking, then go read a few books instead. It'll come back, just as exercise and diet will overcome a habit of poor nutritional snacking.

It's clearly a change in the way (much) of the world operates. The key is to understand the new environment, and adapt to how *other* people are changing.

Veoh Raises $30 Million: Is There Room for Another YouTube?

I disagree. There's no step up, or other change, in the Veoh trend line to indicate the Stage6 devotees went there, despite the best efforts of DivX. If they did, Veoh must have lost other uniques in the process. I suspect there is no Stage6 "block" out there anymore.

Nationwide WiMAX: Who Benefits?

Wow. Who ever thought sacred cow tipping could be such fun. Good thing Tony Stark lent me one one of his spare suits over the weekend.

@Vlad has this mostly right. Do I think WiMax would be bad for consumers? Hell no, I frankly hope CLWR succeeds, there's a huge demand for what it promises. I'll be first in line.

Do I think the technology itself will fail? No, not at all. I do question whether this implies that everyone who deploys it will succeed, or even has a winning business plan. But I'm happy to be educated.

Can someone point to an existing WiMax deployment that consistently delivers high bandwidth service--fixed or mobile--to an appreciable portion of the local consumer population? (Trials don't count, the ability to scale is important here.) And is the operator solvent? If WiMax is truly "available today" this should be easy.

A good portion of the advantage WiMax has over WiFi is in the higher power allowed in licensed vs. unlicensed spectrum. What is the additional battery drain on your laptop due to the higher power required to achieve this advantage? How much longer will you spend charging your batteries (keeping you wired)?

WiFi has had some successes and some (big) failures in both small muni and larger metro settings. Maybe it will take WiMax many such tries to get it right. How do we know CLWR isn't another WiFi Philadelphia? Plenty of smart people dumped money into that one. For that matter, how do we know it isn't another Metricom?

Finally, @Pullease--"shill for the legacy companies"? Them's fightin' words, mister.

Google’s Earnings Expose Wall Street’s Limitations

Vikram,

Nice summary. I think you're short-changing analysts a bit though. (Disclosure: I'm one, but I don't cover GOOG.)

1. Google's earnings came in lower than analysts original estimates (but above most recent pre-earnings mean). So they were right to adjust downward. Yes, they overshot, but...

2. The press typically reports mean analyst estimates, when the median (and/or the range) tells you more about what analysts really think. The estimate spread tends to be higher on stocks with less available info (like guidance). But that makes being right much more valuable, too.

3. Analysts make calls that are often wrong. But regardless of their accuracy if their commentary "moves" stocks they are viewed as more knowledgeable by clients, and therefore earn more money for their firm.

This doesn't mean they're dishonest. I'm convinced most believe a buy means a buy, and do an earnest job of prediction. The expectation of perfection on their numbers is what causes much of the volatility, I think. And I'm not aware of any fund managers that rely overmuch on them--they look instead for the kind of commentary and industry understanding you state analysts lack. Nobody should be using analyst estimates as a substitute for thinking. Caveat emptor.

Beating up analysts is easy. Being one isn't. Neither is trying to second guess them. (That's why good asset managers get the big bucks.) Yes, there are plenty of analysts that have no understanding of their industry--or even business--but there are many who do. Including some, I'm sure, who cover Google.

Google and the Analysts: Ignore Price Targets

NOt to be too forgiving of the Google analysts, but how does your analysis look when you compare Google analyst performance vs. a benchmark, say the S&P500?. Each bank is different, but many consider a "buy" to mean outperformance relative to applicable benchmarks. In that case a consistent "buy" with changing price targets makes sense (as long as the outperformance prediction pans out--not a slam dunk, for sure).

Is Microsoft Screening Its Search Results?

Hmm. If you switched to FIOS TV, and somebody pointed out to you that there were channels and programs that weren't being delivered--perhaps even a major network--how long do you think it would be before you changed provider to satellite or cable?

If in fact MSFT is filtering, they're shooting themselves in the foot for sure. By default they are not returning the best search results, and after all people us a search engine to get results, not ads.

Microsoft to Attack Google Over Copyright Cavalierism

Interesting. Hasn't MS made all it's money on the back of other people's innovations? Can you say Mac? Or even Xerox PARC? Sheesh.