Crocodilian

Apple to Open 50 More Stores - Let's Be Careful, Steve

Why is Apple opening more stores?

Because they're _way_ better at selling Apple products than, say, Best Buy.

I was skeptical of the Apple Store idea when they rolled it out. Let's just say that they've proven that they were right.

And it makes sense to do deals on commercial real estate today, when Apple can drive a terrific bargain. Not many other companies with $20+ billion in the bank and sterling reputations are looking for retail space at the moment, are they?

38 Reasons the Google IPO Isn't the Big Deal Some Are Making It Out to Be

Many things may be "up" more than Google.

None of them has changed the world as Google has. Google's success, technological and financial, is important precisely because its what our system is _supposed_ to do well: encourage and finance disruptive technologies, even when they gore the ox of the establishment.

That's the "creative destruction" of capitalism, so often honored in the breach . . . we honor Google because its the way it _should_ be, even if its not the way that it always is.

Microsoft: Whistling in the Dark

While MSFT certainly is not at its apogee, author's take on MSFT's Apple investment is wrong.

As a monopolist, the greatest threat to Microsoft has never been competition-- its been antitrust. In maintaining Apple as a viable competitor, Microsoft put itself on far better ground with respect to the DOJ. Remember, it was an endless anti-trust lawsuit that nearly brought IBM to its knees . . . Microsoft "immunized" themselves from many of the anti-trust challenges precisely because Apple offered a choice, but ideally for Microsoft, it was a "niche" choice that not many of its customers would switch to.

This has allowed Microsoft to enjoy monopoly profits for many years, and that's a huge win in business terms. No monopoly lasts forever, but Microsoft's skillful strategy has clearly allowed them to enjoy it for a very long time.

Three Strikes from Apple and Palm May Be Out

The argument for the Pre might be summarized as "Hulu" -- that is, the Apple ecosystem is so tightly integrated, and belongs so completely to Apple, that it creates powerful incentives for other parties to create some other choice, or risk losing control over their own business.

A Good Time to Buy Apple

I love Apple, have owned it a long time, and sold half my position on Friday. Apple computers are wonderful, the iPhone is genius, and the AppStore's terrific. Its a combination of superior design, and superior function and gamechanging understanding of how things can be bought

Notwithstanding that, Apple's going to have a very hard time this year. Its a luxury product, at a premium price. Just think about mall traffic. Apple's stores have done terrifically well for them-- but a fair number are located in upscale malls, where traffic counts are going to fall dramatically.

Still a great company, but I'm going to say that you'll get a chance to buy it cheaper.

Apple SEC Investigation: Rotten to Core

> Fortunately, after further testing,
> my doctors think they have found the cause -- a hormone imbalance
> that has been "robbing" me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy.


> Sophisticated blood tests have confirmed this diagnosis. The remedy
> for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward,
> and I've already begun treatment."

Patients with pancreatic disorders have a range of "malabsorption syndromes" which produce precisely the symptoms that Jobs has.

In the very best case, enzyme replacement can produce something approximating normal digestion . . . I imagine that's what Jobs' docs told him, and what he was repeating.

One never really "gets to the bottom" of what is happening with someone with as medically complex and unusual a situation as he has; "condition" is a moving target. One test may reveal one thing, another test may reveal another-- that's the norm. He may well have said something which was wrong, or which later proves to be wrong. That's not lying, that's simply being wrong.

Jobs is a human being with a lousy disease. He's behaved honorably, truthfully, and investors and commentators should respect that.

Moreover, Apple has performed exceedingly well in a lousy environment-- complaints are not only shabby in human terms, they're dumb from a business perspective. If you believe that this excellent company is solely dependent on the services of one man, you should sell the stock.

Apple SEC Investigation: Rotten to Core

On Jan 27 03:36 PM BS Detector wrote:

> Crocodilian wrote: "This assumes that Jobs knows information about
> his health, and was withholding it..."
>
> No, there is no such assumption stated or implied. I repeat: "As
> for Jobs' right to privacy - he has it just as far as it doesn't
> compromise his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders." This doesn't
> just mean Jobs, and it doesn't just mean health-related information.

He has no obligation to go and get tests in order to gain information about his health for the benefit of shareholders. My impression is that he simply didn't know that much about what was going on with his weight loss-- which is consistent with how oncologists manage their patients-- particularly when the prognosis is grim.

> I'm guessing that the SEC's problem lies in Jobs' email, nine days
> before he took his leave, which appears to be of questionable >veracity.

There is no indication of any deception. Having spent a lot of time with cancer patients and oncologists, I can say from experience that what patients know, when they are told precisely which piece of bad news is part of the "art" of medicine. Moreover, even when they are told a piece of bad news, how they process it often has more than bit of denial. So, assuming Steve Jobs is like any other cancer patient, I would _expect_ his understanding and his statements about his own health to be shaded to the optimistic.

Good docs routinely choose _not_ to do tests which are likely to turn up some devastating news about which not much can be done. Its also part of good care for a seriously ill patient to help them continue to do whatever it is that they find meaningful in their lives.

Steve Jobs clearly finds running Apple meaningful . . . his doc is not going to call the Board and say "you should know that your CEO is gravely ill" -- that's a violation of HIPAA and the Hippocratic Oath.

Apple SEC Investigation: Rotten to Core

> Sigh. This has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has to do
> with corporate governance. As for Jobs' right to privacy - he has
> it just as far as it doesn't compromise his fiduciary responsibility
> to shareholders. As a member of the board of directors, he must
> provide material information (see above) to the public. If his desire
> for privacy is in conflict with his fiduciary responsibilities, then
> he has a choice to make.

This assumes that Jobs knows information about his health, and was withholding it, but this assumption is likely wrong. Most cancer patients neither know nor want to know up to the minute details about their disease, and there's usually no medical reason to go looking for disease very aggressively.

Oncologists do not go fishing to find new cancers in patients who've previously been treated for cancer, unless early detection yield some increased survival or quality of life, and while they usually have a very good idea of how their patients are doing, they tend not to share the details or prognosis with the patient unless asked specifically.

If Jobs behaved like other patients treated for a dire cancer who then began losing weight, he may well not have even seen his physician-- that's pretty common behavior.

Shareholders knew all that they needed to know: Jobs was previously been treated for pancreatic cancer, and was visibly losing weight. This is consistent with one of two things: major disruption of gastro-intestinal function (occurs frequently with anything involving the pancreas) or a return of the cancer.

Either is quite dire.

So shareholders knew and know all they needed to know, probably at the same time Jobs did. He was losing weight and looked ill. He's not going to run Apple forever; if you're not comfortable with the team he's built, you shouldn't hold Apple stock.

How the iPhone and Poor Management Contribute to Apple's Downfall

I read this, and see a glass half full. Apple has given itself an enviably solid platform of recurring revenues and ample cash balances with which to ride out a storm.

In this horrible market, in which every dubious projection is being "marked to worst", Apple is a buy precisely because the company reserves its marketing spin for its product promotion, not its financial statements.

Let's have a cheer for conservatively presented financial reporting!