SingHash

12 Comments

    • ON: Mon Sep 22nd 09:27 AM
      Commented on:
      Treasury's Actions Not in Our Best Interest
      The fed action merely validates irresponsible behavior on the part of lenders and borrowers alike. You don't cure an addict by giving him a few more bucks to fuel his addiction.

      The point of a free market economy is that fiscal failure is punished by corporate death. Yet the same hands that are begging for alms now will be ranting against government interference and "creeping socialism" the moment they're held accountable to the public.

      Disgusting.
      View article »
    • ON: Fri Aug 29th 07:20 AM
      Commented on:
      Record Companies Starting to Shun iTunes
      The labels "chafe" against the idea that I will buy what I want instead of the package they mandate? I hope they get chafed right down to the economic bone. It's called "giving the customers what they want".

      Second, if it weren't available on iTunes, I wouldn't get it at all. Think of the huge numbers of "I want it now" consumers, and this trend is only going to increase. The"I'd buy it on CD" percentage of my iTunes purchases is about 2%.

      The real problem for the labels is that this 'piecemeal' approach is screwing up their accounting. Instead of buying albums from 10 star performers, I'm buying singles from a hundred.

      And finally, the environmental cost of those CDs should be considered. Not that computers are free of environmental sin, but every download I buy is one less bundle of CD, case, plastic, paper, and sales slip. It's a fraction of a reduced trip to the CD shop, complete with burning gasoline, wasted time, and parking fees. And as an earlier poster noted, I'm just going to rip the thing in iTunes anyway.

      Chafe away, labels. You deserve it.
      View article »
    • ON: Fri Aug 29th 06:41 AM
      Commented on:
      Steve Jobs Isn't Dead Yet!
      On a slightly less hysterical note (for heaven's sake, Papita -- Bloomberg very briefly reported the demise of SJ; your host (J. West) is merely grafting the very real "succession question" onto Bloomberg's gaffe)...

      ...and with all due apologies AND compliments on an interesting article regarding said "succession question", I have to note that the Holy Grail skit in question ended with the lines:

      (Arthur enters with squire Patsy)
      Customer (John Cleese): Who's that, then?
      Cart Master (Eric Idle): I dunno. Must be a king.
      Customer: Why?
      Cart Master: He hasn't got *^#! all over him.

      *****

      All of which might apply to Mr. Jobs, come to think of it. Just think of the options backdating scandals, the prosperity of the stock, and the fact that the company is wildly profitable even in the harshest of economic climates. The man, clearly, does not have &^@! all over him, and that makes him a king, dunnit?
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Jun 12th 13:21 PM
      Commented on:
      Are Glorious Days Ahead for Microsoft?
      Jack writes...

      "However the lack of erosion in its incumbent business (for 25 years!) means that its core earnings are very unlikely to change."

      I'm thinking of a company that was dominant -- absolutely, unassailably dominant -- for about 25 years. Big, powerful, and the only place to be if you really wanted to do serious computing.

      Unfortunately, their business practices landed them in a bit of hot water, and they spent over a decade under intense legal scrutiny. It came to the point where legal caution stifled agility. When new, disruptive technologies emerged, the company was pummeled, decimated, and marginalized.

      Eventually, they reinvented themselves and recovered pretty well -- but the paradigm had changed, and there were lots of new, more interesting places to work.

      The company was IBM; the time span was 1960 - 1985. Microsoft -- which itself was instrumental in IBM's near-death experience -- is doing a lovely job of following a similar trajectory.

      The best thing Microsoft could do for its shareholders right now (and I am one) would be to shut it down, liquidate its assets, and return the money to its shareholders.
      View article »
    • ON: Fri May 23rd 13:06 PM
      Commented on:
      Microsoft's Cashback: Changing the Internet Industry Forever
      MSFT appears intent on turning the internet into a virtual strip mall. In the process, it will degrade the quality of the shopping experience and reduce customer service -- but only for those who are willing to suffer the misery of shopping on the seedy side of town for the sake of a few bucks.

      The GOOD news is that this will hasten the demise of the common internet. I foresee cash-back retailers flocking to a their own TLD (top-level domain), while leaving the rest of the net less encumbered by their dreck. Think of the difference between a developing-world bazaar ("You buy Rolex, very good yes?") vs. high-end boutique ("Would sir like this Rolex? It's very good, isn't it?").

      Eventually, cash-back will come out of the retailers' pockets, which means that they'll have to cut all the corners they can in order to survive. It'll be a race to the bottom for every vendor who chooses to participate. The boutiques, on the other hand, will do quite nicely, providing a pleasant experience and great customer service to those who are willing to pay a few extra dollars.

      It's nothing more than a re-zoning of the internet, with MSFT paving the parking lots -- soon to be complete with potholes, derelicts, hoodlums, needles on the ground, and urine on the wall. Thanks, guys.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu May 8th 09:32 AM
      Commented on:
      How Microsoft Could Kill Google on the Web
      1. With free ads, MSFT is certain to provoke further antitrust ire -- in Europe and Korea if not in America. Even without its shameful record of corporate abuse, regulators simply wouldn't countenance such a ploy to leverage one monopoly into another.

      2. Would you watch a television show during which the station was airing free ads? I'm not an economist, but I think this qualifies as an example of "the tragedy of the commons". I think (hope!) that most people go to the internet for _content_, so lowering the barriers to entry for non-content seems to be counter-productive.
      View article »
    • ON: Tue Apr 29th 19:59 PM
      Commented on:
      7 Reasons You Can't Kill Microsoft
      #2: That 140 million figure includes downgraders.

      Most PCs have Vista pre-installed. Even if a user downgrades to XP, MS still counts this as a Vista user. It would be more accurate to count the number of boxed retail copies that were sold.
      View article »
    • ON: Sun Apr 13th 12:29 PM
      Commented on:
      Is GE a Buy?
      Sullivan says: "...why one would want to own it anyway?"

      Okay. I'll answer that question for myself.

      * Forward P/E: 12
      * Dividend yield well over 3% @ 52% payout
      * Profitable business
      * Diversified across sectors, industries, technologies, and geographies

      GE has deep pockets to buy out distressed OR dangerous competitors during an economic downturn.

      In my eyes, these characteristics illustrate a stock to promote sound sleep through any economic turbulence.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Apr 3rd 10:03 AM
      Commented on:
      Microsoft and Competitors Continue to Waste Resources on OOXML
      Amen. Apologies that I haven't come across your previous posts on the topic. Cheers.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Apr 3rd 06:18 AM
      Commented on:
      Microsoft and Competitors Continue to Waste Resources on OOXML
      "a colossal waste" indeed: MSXML (aka OOXML) itself is destined to be a colossal waste of money for absolutely everybody including Microsoft, which has squandered its own resources as well as those of countless others who have taken a stand against the idiocy of a soi-disant "standard" which cannot be implemented and is -- at best -- a sorely flawed replication of an existing standard (ODF) that has already proven itself.

      I've read parts of the standard (not all 6000+ pages, I'm afraid), and the detractors have a valid point: it reads like it's written by software engineers pretending to be lawyers -- or vice versa.

      View article »
    • ON: Sun Mar 23rd 12:08 PM
      Commented on:
      Free Coffee at Starbuck: a Taste of Things to Come
      I agree with swag (post on 4:54pm): the value of Starbucks lies not in being a reasonably cheap cup o', but rather in the entire experience.

      My suggestion: Raise the price, grind the beans, and get rid of the kids' stuff. Throw out the schoolkids and the suits-with-laptops -- they just take up space and don't feed the till. And give me a nice biscuit with my cup of coffee.

      I have THI for my cheap (though truly tasty) fix, and SBUX for the deluxe experience. Different days, different dates.

      Ultimately, SBUX is about drinking coffee; HS & co would do well to jettison anything that doesn't contribute to the coffee drinking experience.
      View article »
    • ON: Mon Dec 31st 12:23 PM
      Commented on:
      Microsoft: Skip Vista, Buy the Stock?
      The small points of market gain for AAPL have immense leverage, and I believe JC is mistaken in dismissing the corresponding (very small) lost points for MSFT. Just a the "network effect" helped MSFT achieve dominance, the _unwinding_ of the network effect may be difficult to reverse.

      Here's roughly how the story goes: when an influential stakeholder uses a Mac, it sends two signals. First, it becomes acceptable for other people to also have one. Second, business associates will have to adopt a greater degree of interoperability. Both of these phenomena lead to an accelerated unwinding of the network effect.

      Certainly, a balance point will be reached -- AAPL's identity hinges on being slightly 'outside'. However, the blanket dominance of the monopolist will be broken, and people will use either platform (or Linux, or Solaris, or...) _because they want to_, and not because the herd requires them to do so.

      Of course, I could be wrong. I sure was wrong when I bought equal-valued lots of MSFT and AAPL in late 1999!
      View article »
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor