ColinToal

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

This article assumes that battery pack production will remain at current levels despite changes in the market.

This is a bad assumption, and poisons all conclusions drawn from it.

It is more likely (certain ?) that battery production will increase in line with PHEV/EV vehicle production - and subsequent economies of scale and efficiencies will do what it always does - drive down price.

Smartphones: The Mobile Industry Is About to Get 'Blown Apart'

I'm with you - but I think RIMM goes to Android or goes away- and this pains me greatly as I think they are great company, I just think the android software is that good.


On May 20 01:42 PM froogloid wrote:

> Wow, what a lot of comments and opinions :) Here's my 2 cents ~ apple
> and android will prevail. OEM's, with the exception of BB, Nokia
> and Palm will of course adopt android. Apple will continue to build
> sexy phones. Microsoft, simply put, has a lot of catching up to do.
>
>
> Of course, I'm biased for android :) froogloid.com/

Smartphones: The Mobile Industry Is About to Get 'Blown Apart'

Get caught in the rain once with your iPhone.

Just once.


On May 20 01:37 PM tilion wrote:

> On May 20 10:50 AM speeddaimon wrote:

Detailing Netflix's Streaming Costs

There is another cost to the end user here that will hurt adoption. Most ISPs are capping monthly bandwidth totals (both up/down). The basic package from Rogers in Canada limits the basic package to 25 Gb (both up and down). That's only 25 hours of content if it is only used to stream standard definition. After that 25Gb limit, there is an overage charge that can be costly (between $2 adn $5 per Gb - which is like $2 -$5 an hour).

No one will be very pleased to find an extra charge on their cable bill related to using AppleTv or XBox Live. Its bad enough that we have to pay for GOOG's ad bits.

Apple Warns iPhone Competitors: Don't Rip Us Off

Is it 1985 again ?

Is AAPL actually threatening to sue the competition over gimmicks that they claim they 'invented' when there is years and years of prior art saying they didn't ? I mean multi-touch for scaling photos is not so far from the Trash Can/Recycle bin is it ? Am I missing something ? Did they learn nothing in the last 20 years ?

I'm looking forward to the iPhone being an also ran to the OHSA, the same way the mac was an also ran to the PC.

Closed architectures are a compromise that customers are forced to make until a competing open alternative displaces it and litigation is always a poor substitute for innovation.

This is why Apple is cyclical. They do something bold and innovative, then they get greedy and lazy and close it off, and then they get beaten by open competitors and they cry to the courts until the crisis forces them to start again.

Good innovator - lousy competitor.

Deja vu all over again.

Apple's Walmart Deal Will Effectively Kill Google's Android

I agree. WalMart is a brand cache killer. iPhone in WalMart looks to me like is a short term, greed play.

It will be interesting though, to see the iPhone brand morph into the "George" brand. I wonder if the iPhone carrying set will rush for the exits when their phone is no longer jewellery.

Plus - who is going into an Apple Store now ? MacGenius classes ? Really ? Is that why people go ?

On Dec 10 07:38 PM Greg Skidmore wrote:

> I find this idea of selling in wmt curious. I think it risks alienating
> Apples cult like following. I remember reading Malcolm Gladwell's
> book Tipping Point and he discusses when Airwalk started selling
> their shoes in main stream dept. stores. Killed the brand immediately.
> What made Airwalks cool is you had to buy them in skate or bmx shops.
> Is apple going to make itself uncool by selling in wmt?
>

Lawson's Harry Debes: SaaS Industry Will Collapse in Two Years

Flash,

In the interest of full disclosure - I work at ORCL in one of their SaaS operations. I do not speak for ORCL in any capacity. I hold shares in ORCL, I do not hold CRM.

I have no access to material information about ORCL and everything in these comments are my own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of my employer.

I would say that MSFT is not an apt analogy.

CRM's profit is pretty much non-existent, so I know that the profit margin at MSFT is higher. I would also guess that the rev/headcount number at MSFT is higher than at CRM. CRM - after option expense - does not return $0.08 a share.

While MSFT hasn't seen its stock rise, its market cap is many times CRM's and MSFT has paid a significant dividend recently. As for the 300x multiple - people are paying are betting on 'long tail' profitability and the CRM 'growth story'.

As for broad 'model' comparisons between SaaS and on-prem - I don't know who has better margins. I think that, investors looking at SaaS services should measure those investments on the same set of metrics they measure a telco on (ARPU, churn, etc).

I agree with Nom De Plum's point. Its not 'impossible' to make money in subscription based services. You either need premium pricing (like Thomson) or you need lots of scale (millions of paying customers).

Again - this is just my personal opinion.


Colin

Lawson's Harry Debes: SaaS Industry Will Collapse in Two Years

Flash,

They make improvements and changes all the time. They coordinate carefully with their customer to manage the process in as efficient and non-disruptive a way as possible.

They also take great pains to design and implement enhancements or features in order to cause the least disruption to the customer. Most packaged software providers go to these same lengths. No one wants to distract the customer needlessly - regardless of whether they provide a leveraged service, or a licensed package.

Change control isn't any harder in SaaS - it just means the SaaS provider bears part of the cost of change. It comes out of their operating margin - not the customer's. This is why SaaS is a hard business - which is what I meant when I said that Ellison says the same thing. SaaS is hard. Software is not cocaine, and people are not dumb - but SaaS is hard.

Customers can't 'veto' a change in a leveraged service (be it software or the gas company), but if you read your EULA for your on-premise software, you can't really veto a change there either. If the provider says you have to take the upgrade, then you have to take the upgrade or void your access to support, or possibly even your license.

The important thing to take from this article is not Debes' crazy hyperbole about cocaine. Its important to know, as an investor or purchaser of SaaS, that the operating margin for the provider is VERY different than the operating margin for licensed on-premise software.

Lawson's Harry Debes: SaaS Industry Will Collapse in Two Years

Ellison says the same thing. SaaS is a hard business - but its not impossible like Debes says.

Look at Thomson or Bloomberg. These guys are SaaS too - and enormously successful.

Google: Paid Click Decline Was Intentional

"We meant to do that."

Ha ha ha ha - that's great.