Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Reuters: BlackBerry thinking of launching Android phone  [View news story]

    If BBRY wants to specialize itself in services and software, it needs to release an Android device to highlight its capabilities it in terms of security and support. I think it is a very smart and rational move. There are a lot of Samsungs in corporate space today and BBRY could easily provide a more secured version of Android to other phone makers. No matter how good BBRY phones are, BBRY does not have any future in the phone business, but it does have a bright future as a security provider, rather it will be for phones or for other smart devices, such as Nest homeware. So making an Android phone for BBRY is not about selling Android Blackberries, but rather to make a vitrine for Blackberry's technologies.
    Jun 12, 2015. 12:07 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry's Internet Of Things Headache  [View article]
    Well perhaps BBRY should seriously consider rushing into IoT. Gartner forecasts over 25 billions connected devices by 2020, while other analysts are even more optimistic with up to 35 billions projections. It represents a lot of money and a lot of needed support. BBRY could become one of the leading security providers for homes and offices as no one would want to have his home hacked. There are much more moneymaking opportunities in IoF business tham in phones or tablets! BBRY wastes too much energy and money to compete in a business that belongs to the past and clearly not enough to the future of the IT industry.
    Jun 11, 2015. 02:57 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • BlackBerry's Internet Of Things Headache  [View article]
    Just out of curiosity... Who would want a Lexus? It feels a little bit mind boggling to read someone who owns a Lexus, bashing Blackberry.
    Jun 11, 2015. 02:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]
    Gregg Rosenberg,

    I simply think that going into music streaming was a terrible move for Apple. At least with that kind of offer that does not provide anything unique or distinguishing. It is not because some people still purchase singles on iTunes and a lot of people spend thousands of dollars a month on apps that Apple will be able to direct all these people to its streaming service. Does it really worth billions in investments? Would not that money be better invested elsewhere?

    Recent market entries showed that it is a highly competitive business and that even a good product with a massive marketing an with world famous stars backing it up, success is far from guaranteed.

    Streaming music is something that is particularly focused on North America. Other countries do not spend that much money on music and use mainly free or illegal content. The American market by itself is not sufficiently big. PwC projects only a 12% revenue growth until 2019 for the whole sector. You should also not forget that most of the profits go to recording studios.

    I might be wrong and Apple would succeed, however, it is not because people like purchasing iPods and iPhones that they would chose Apple streaming over some other service. Apple's hardware is based on trend and snobbism. It is a social distinguishing sign of relative wealth. Apple's software on the other hand is more often a source of mockery. I am afraid that music streaming will not be an exception and Apple will unnecessarily lose billions.
    Jun 8, 2015. 08:47 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]

    No one holds the accurate information on the user base, besides the company itself. I simply do not rely on half-baked information and prefer to be cautious even when it comes to the IT god the father, the son and the holy spirit.

    All I know is that music is typically a service designed for youngsters. I do not know how the situation is in the US, but European youngsters are all broke and they have other priorities than subscribing to music streaming services, especially when free music is available everywhere. That is why the user growth is so slow and the total number of subscribers for all platforms is not that impressive. As an Apple's investor I hope that I am wrong, but for now, I would not count that much on that new service to make money.

    After these recent Apple Radio (massive expectations as well on behalf of Apple) and that Tidal (900,000 users despite all that huge marketing) thing flops, I would not count on music revenue whatsoever. The only way for Apple to become relevant in music streaming is by offering ground level subscription fees. Obviously they are not willing to do that.
    Jun 8, 2015. 06:33 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]
    Inside Man,

    "just that the global live streaming DJ service was new. Have others done that already?"

    Awdio among others : https://www.awdio.com

    This site exists since 2008, it is by far the most famous and it allows people to stream the music of live events from the most famous nightclubs all over the world. It is available on AppStore and Android Market and this service is free.

    A lot of radios invite at least twice a week famous Djs for live events as well. Apple obviously did not invent the wheel. Hopefully, Apple's payable service is better.
    Jun 8, 2015. 05:53 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]

    They will be able to announce up to 800 million users, if each iTunes users takes the 3 months trial and becomes a subscriber in the strict sense of the term. The question is not the number of subscribers, but the revenue, profits and the retention rate. Apple invested €1.7 billions in European infrastructures for this service. We will see how it works out. Regardless, we obviously do not need to worry about Apple!
    Jun 8, 2015. 05:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]
    Insider Man,

    Net profit is closer to cash inflows than revenue. Most of the times net profit is the cash inflow.
    Jun 8, 2015. 05:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]

    I have an iTunes account too, but I did not spend a penny there. For me, these figures are completely irrelevant.

    What is relevant is $30 billion dollars transferred to developers by Apple (announced during the Keynote).

    I think that at best, Apple could count on 100% of clients of all its competitors, as those who were ready to pay for a music service, already do it, others download illegally or go on Youtube.
    Jun 8, 2015. 05:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]

    I disagree with you on the following point :

    "I would think the smaller company should provide a better experience. They are smaller, more nimble, more in tune with the market. If they didn't there is no purpose for the smaller firm to exist."

    These services exist for years. They are available on all phones and all tablets. If you cannot do better, do not even bother. At this point, Apple's desperate will of diversification pushed to simply align itself to the competition.

    For now, before testing the service, I think that the price difference does not justify the lack of differentiation. It does not mean that the service will not attract clients, especially the Apple fans, but personally, I feel disappointed by Apple's lack of innovation here. Usually, if Apple does something, it does it better, or it waits till it will be able to provide something different. Here we return to the Plans experience again.
    Jun 8, 2015. 05:03 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]

    It is like if you were the one who made that service! Why do you defend it that much, you never even used it yourself.

    Good for Apple if it provided a *slightly* better service, for perhaps, a *slightly* lower price. It shook up competitors, now in the coming weeks they will come up with a retaliation.

    My point is that once again, there is nothing truly impressive and Apple falls once again in the category of followers and not makers. Who do you think is supposed to provide a better AND a more impressive service, a multinational giant corporation with hundreds of billions in cash, or a mid size startup? Frankly, I am more impressed by what the small guys did and extremely disappointed by what Apple presented today, considering its capabilities, its means, its talents, its former achievements and its *former* philosophy. I assume that today's Apple is happy with a good enough.

    But of course, this is an opinion of a small atomistic investor.
    Jun 8, 2015. 04:27 PM | 12 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple reveals Music service, News app, iPad multitasking, watchOS 2  [View news story]
    Inside man,

    The issue is that AAPL did not provide any real reason to switch from the competitors. The are no new features, no new content and the price is in the range of competitors. Why bother?
    Jun 8, 2015. 03:39 PM | 16 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Watch Is Making Luxury Watchmakers Uncomfortable  [View article]
    Bitter? I simply see the reality as it is and as a former market analyst I tend to compare specs of other devices as well. I like Apple for a lot of things, but I dislike it for many others as well. There is no need to come up with some personal remarks just because I am not an unconditional aficionado.

    If I was bitter at Apple would I be holding $780k in its shares since $57? I do not think so. I would most probably not be buying all kind of Apple products upon their release to my grandchildren either, including the €1300 Apple Watches. I simply look at things rationally and I perfectly realize that these products are nothing more than overpriced designer toys for spoiled rich children.

    If I was wealthy enough to give away €900 for a phone, I would most probably turn myself to a BlackBerry Passport or the curved screen Samsung, as I find that they are at least somewhat original compared the Apple's inspirational stagnation.

    But nevertheless, thank you very much for assuming that Jobs and I could have been such big friends that he would come party hard at my place. I truly appreciate your esteem for me.
    Jun 7, 2015. 05:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Watch Is Making Luxury Watchmakers Uncomfortable  [View article]
    Apple is ALWAYS 1-2 years behind the competition in terms of specs. Samsung, LG, HTC, Xiaomi, Huawei and even Blackberry have better processors, better RAMs and sometimes even better screens than Apple, for a lower final consumer price.

    The only difference is that iOS is not as spec consuming as Android, so it can run smoothly with lower specs, but perhaps it could have been running even better with higher specs, who knows.

    The fact that Apple spares on parts is simply obvious and I have simply no doubts that Apple spared on the Apple Watch as well. Just look at the Edition - they even invented a cheaper gold alloy! Instead of using silver or copper, they added ceramics and use 25% less gold per volume. It is barely considered as being an authentic gold and despite paying cheaper to produce it, they charge even more than for regular golden products!
    Jun 7, 2015. 12:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Watch Is Making Luxury Watchmakers Uncomfortable  [View article]
    No, knowing Apple, I think that it made a trade off between the highest profit that it is ready to lose and the lowest battery life that consumers would be ready to accept. At $84 of cost per $400 watch I am sure that battery life could have been much higher. Unfortunately, people still buy even though they complain, so there is no reason for Apple to change its policy.

    When Apple anounced ~12 hours of battery upon the presentation, people were genuinely shocked. In just 2 months the battery life went to 24-36 hours. Apple simply ordered better batteries. In my opinion, by picking a more expensive battery they could have done much better, but since dozens of millions of people do not care, why bother.

    Wait for the next version, it will be at 48 as better batteries will become cheaper.
    Jun 7, 2015. 11:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment