Yagottabe Kidding's Comments

4 Mobile Predictions for the New Year

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:30:53 -0500

W.r.t Palm getting bought (HA HA HA!) just what price are we talking about here?

$5 billion?

[don't forget the REAL share count that includes the Preferred Shares getting converted - we're talking 200+ million shares and the CURRENT stock price is $12 and the current debt that needs to be paid off is $400 million and one should assume there is SOME sort of premium on top of that]

$300 million like the outrageously expensive purchase of PalmSource and PalmOS?

Just what are we talking here?

Wouldn't Android simply be cheaper all around?

The Unlocked Phone Movement Gets a Big Boost

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:27:45 -0500

> There is definitely a price war brewing...

Can companies like Palm handle a price war?

I don't think so.

We're going to see some...er..."consolida...

Does CEO Age Affect Stock Performance?

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 06:34:59 -0500

Now graph college degree and performance. Or location and performance. Or sex and performance. Or...you know... CEO experience and performance.

Oh!

Wait!

That sample population above was hand picked!

Oh good grief.

Nevermind.

Next!

Google Phone May Be Data Only, VoIP Driven Device

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:17:59 -0500

It is WELL past time that someone comes out with a data-only cell phone that is OVERTLY data-only (instead of the under-the-covers data-only (!) that all sell phones are already).

Hope it's true.

Time for carriers to mimic cable companies and supply us with dumb pipes.

Novatel: Comparing 'Sell Through' vs. 'Sell In' Numbers

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:23:26 -0500

Understand that =PALM's= definition of "sell-through" is NOT, repeat NOT, "sales to end customers".

Palm's definition of sell-through is "sales by those to whom we have sold-in" (*).

Why is this of import?

Because, as noted above, Palm had an 85% customer, Sprint, that served as a wholesaler to other venues like BestBuy, Walmart, Radioshack, etc.

That is, when Sprint turned around and sold Pres to, say, BestBuy, those Pres were counted =by Palm= as "sold-through" even though they were in warehouses and on shelves yet to be sold to end customers.

We don't know what wholesale customers Sprint has other than the above; they COULD include even other wholesalers - thus Palm sells to Sprint (that's "sold-in"), Sprint sells to Wholesaler X (Palm counts that as "sold-through"), Wholesaler X sells to Retailer Y, Retailer Y can't sell the device and it sits on a shelf.

Sold-through.

------

(*) There's a very small and insignificant "sell-through" that goes directly to end customers from Palm via Web sales with no "sold-in" in-between.

Garmin Plans to Launch Android Phone

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:52:04 -0500

IOW - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Weekly Shorts Review: Garmin, TomTom, Nintendo, Palm

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:48:55 -0500

Nokia isn't going to pay billions of dollars for Palm.

No one is.

It's WELL past time to put this silliness to rest.

=========

A few years ago when Palm actually had some pretty good-selling devices, like the Centro and Treos (planned or out), Palm's BoD decided the BEST future for Palm was to sell the company.

And they could not even though they had hundreds of millions in cash, no debt, and said devices. [this is all revealed in Palm's SEC documentation about the original Elevation Partners transaction]

NOW Palm is heavily in debt, has massively more shares outstanding, has Preferred Shares that have priority over common, and have a weak product that apparently didn't even live up to expectations.

And the stock price suggests billions upon billions of dollars to buy it out.

Why does ANYONE reasonably think any company would NOW be insane enough to buy Palm anywhere near the current price if they weren't insane enough to buy it really cheaper a couple years ago?

Did Galleon Always Have Too Much of an Edge?

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:03:38 -0500

I think the more interesting story will be the large-net-full of those OUTSIDE Galleon who are caught and exposed. THAT could be the real Market Shaker.

Apple Gaining Ground in Smartphone Race

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:27:41 -0400

The survey was NOT of "4255 consumers" but instead "4255 high income high education senior tech-field consumers".

I think that may have import w.r.t. how well this survey is representative of the general phone consumer population.

Google Redefines GPS Navigation Landscape

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:32:48 -0400

> ...And it is only available for Android 2.0 phones...

Is that right?

Full Featured Cell Phones Going the Way of the PDA

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:27:36 -0400

If a phone sells for $50 does it matter if we call it a dumb phone, feature phone, or smart phone?

It's still a $50 phone.

The question is not (and should not be) whether the "smart phone segment" is dramatically increasing, but whether the TOTAL phone market is increasing.

Because a $50 phone is a $50 phone no matter what else we call it.

When Will Nokia Wake Up?

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:28:18 -0400

Perhaps Nokia has decided the "smartphone segment" isn't much of a segment relative to their other segments so are participating strictly because they have a need for a presence.

When featurephones have all the capability that smartphones have with, literally, some minor details excluded (in fact, pundits are going through excruciating convolutions to define "featurephone" and "smartphone" now so they don't totally overlap), why produce a smartphone?

Poor IT Management Goes Mainstream

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:37:59 -0400

I hope the real story behind this data loss comes out. In this day of fully-redundant RAID arrays it's kind of hard to lose data unless you wipe the data programmatically.

How Big Will Android Get?

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:25:26 -0400

Good grief - someone actually noticing the ridiculousness of number of significant digits used by some sites!

What!? Did you take a math course or something and actually REMEMBER what it taught?

'Bout time someone did.

Good article.

Android, iPhone Ride Rising Tide

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 05:55:01 -0400

How is "marketshare" computed? Do those who calculate "marketshare" rely on sell-through numbers from the various manufacturers? If not, how else do they get (number of units sold by manyfacturer X)/total units by everyone)?

Now that we know Palm reports "sell-through" numbers that INCLUDE sales by their main (Pre) distributor, Sprint, to retailers (and, quite likely, even sales to distributors - those who sell to retailers )- that is, NOT end-consumers and NOT part of any "marketshare" - how is their marketshare number computed?

Oracle's Larry Ellison Rips into Cloud Computing 'Nonsense'

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:41:19 -0400

A rose by any other name?

Or is that "A rose by Yet Another Name"?

Palm Has a PREcarious Channel Issue

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:38:42 -0400

I'm not sure what your reply is saying vis-a-vis what we NOW know "sell-through" means when Palm says the word, but at least we NOW know "sell-through" does indeed include devices that are NOT in end-consumer hands - exactly as you guys said (and MUCH to the surprise of Palm-observers far and wide!).

That's really all that matters - that little factoid screws up all SORTS of analysis, even off-the-cuff statements like "The X is being well received by the end consumer" for all 'X'.

And when you're discussing "marketshare" WHAT number is being used to represent Palm;s devices in that market? Could it be...gasp!..."sell-thr... as reported by Palm?

Palm Has a PREcarious Channel Issue

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:08:34 -0400

According to AllThingsD Palm has finally admlitted that their use of "sell-through" includes sales by those to whom they have sold to other non-end-consumer venues.

>>> UPDATE: This just in from Palm …
“The sell-through data we post reflects carriers’ sales to their customers. For example, Sprint customers include consumers who buy in a Sprint store, and Sprint retail partners such as Best Buy and RadioShack. We rely on our wireless carriers to provide us with sell-through data, and we note this fact in our 10Q.”
<<<

So forget everything you assumed about "sell-through", including its utility as a measure of a particular device's success.

Palm: Is the End Near?

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:00:10 -0400

Though Palm is not a success at selling Palm phones, they are an EXCELLENT success at selling Palm shares. They have a massive cash balance now NOT due to any particular well-selling phone but instead due to mostly ONE deep-pocket investor. As long as that deep-pocketed investor continues to throw money at them, they'll do "fine"!

There may be a =slight= hint that the deep-pocketed investor is pulling back a little, however, since THIS time "only" $35 million was thrown at Palm.

But in any case, Palm has enough cash now to last more than a year with a series of unsuccessful phones!

I wouldn't count them out yet...lol!

Palm Has a PREcarious Channel Issue

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:06:05 -0400

If Palm has quietly changed the used-over-and-over-again definition of "sell-through" to simply mean that someone they sold to has in turn sold then they have materially changed a key number that they discuss in their earnings calls.

Since Day One "sell-through" has ALWAYS meant "sales to a consumer" and has NEVER meant "sales to a retail venue". The difference is SO radical (especially the "hidden inventory" angle) that such a change would require overt mention, IMHO.

In their 10Q Palm does not define sell-through, however they say only that they are relying on their customers to accurately report sell-through numbers. That is a rather wide hole in the reporting of a key statistic.

Smartphones: Is Image Really Everything?

Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:58:31 -0400

Engadget refuses to reveal who paid for that "report".

Palm Raises $313 Million, Bolsters War Chest

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:07:29 -0400

Elsewhere a poster commented that Palm should stop trying to sell phones and just sell stock in their company.

Lol!

Reading Palm: Pre Sales and the Secondary Offering

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:16:55 -0400

Palm at first said (everything paraphrased) "sell-in and sell-through were majorly Pre". When an analyst threw those words back in Palm's face by saying "You said sell-in was majorly Pre and sell-through was majorly Pre" the CFO came back and said "We didn't say that - we said sell-in plus sell-through was majorly Pre" - that's an apples and oranges combo as other posters have pointed out. We EASILY can (correctly) assume sell-in was almost entirely Pre. If Palm sold-through ONLY, say, 200,000 Pres then sell-in and sell-through could be ambiguously quantified as "majorly Pre" even though sell-through would have been majorly NOT Pre.

Sometimes it's what they do NOT say that's important, huh?

Palm Dances Around Pre Sales Figures

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:09:50 -0400

Palm outright said they did NOT say Pre was majorly the sell-through and Pre was majorly the sell-in. They stressed that you had to add up sell-in (quite likely more than 3/4s Pre) and sell-through (no number (*)) and THEN you get "majorly part" of the TOTAL activity.

Denying sell-in was major and sell-through was major screams out that sell-through was not major. Maybe 400,000 out of 810,000 if they were lucky?

Palm: Sentiment Still Weak, But Up Ahead of Earnings

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:22:55 -0400

Increased estimates are harder to beat.

Can Motorola Follow the Palm Path?

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:59:10 -0400

[This is a clarification post]

When I type "low-end" above I am NOT talking about functionality but instead "place in the lineup". Motorola, if they are indeed pricing the Cliq "free" with contract, is setting a new standard for smartphones that ALL the other manufacturers will have to beat. The Cliq is wonderfully functional and includes Motorola's Motoblur which aparently is a better-implemented act-alike to Palm's Synergy - a REAL slap upside their corporate head.

Can Motorola Follow the Palm Path?

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:56:10 -0400

I call it a low-end phone because Motorola called it a low-end phone...and in the same breath mentioned the high-end phone was going to be introduced in a couple/few weeks. And, of course, we have STRONG evidence with that "leaked" T-Mobile web page that low-end pricing is coming for the Cliq.

[could the T-Mobile page have simply been a bogus-pricing placeholder? Of course, but we literally have NO evidence of that. As such, the BEST evidence we have right now is the Cliq is going to be "free' with contract - that's "low-end" (not low-functionality) pricing]

Can Motorola Follow the Palm Path?

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:48:18 -0400

T-Mobile "leaked" a web page showing the price for the Cliq was "Free" with contract. The page was pulled fairly quickly. Was that the ACTUAL price? It makes sense to this reader since the Cliq =is= a low-end smartphone ala the Centro (though with contemporary low-end features, not year-old low-end features). I think this business is just now getting interesting. Of course, free smartphones could be game changers entirely, causing low margin pressure on competitors...like Palm and its to-be-released Pixi.

No Pixi Dust for Palm?

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:03:35 -0400

With the Motorola Cliq supposedly being free (with contract), I'd say this article needs rewriting.

Motorola's Cliq Builds on iPhone Concept

Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:45:19 -0400

If the price is as that T-Mobile web page (there, then gone!) says - that is, free with contract - then this phone is a tremendous game changer.