Ron Shuttleworth's Comments

Mobile Apps Stores: Billing Systems May Determine Success

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:23:48 -0400

Paypal has about 170 m accounts but only about 70 m are active. iTunes has over 100 m accounts with 65 m active - I tried to highlight it in the table. I believe that the cut off for active is 1 year - although it was not explicit. WRT Paypal/RIM overlap...it is likely smallish to start. I still think that the overriding theme is that its easier to upsell into large account bases...like the carriers. If the carriers are not aligned, then the unaligned handset folks may suffer uptake - at least initially. It's funny how MSFT is so discounted in the space - which they probably like as they hide in the weeds. thx for the comment!

On Apr 07 04:15 PM Scott Conroy wrote:

> PayPal has about 150 million users and I would say that there is
> a significant overlap of smartphone users and PayPal users. This
> overlap will only increase when considering that Skype is likely
> to be one of the most popular applications on most smartphones (and
> paying for Skype is very easy with PayPal).
>
> Is Microsoft planning to offer applications for non-MS phones? I
> haven't heard as such. Assuming they're not, one shouldn't count
> total carrier subscribers, but only those subscribers using phones
> based on a Microsoft OS. That number is a tiny fraction of the total
> number of subscribers.

Is the Newspapers' Shift in Focus to the Web Too Late?

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:47:22 -0400

The decline is 40.5%. Sorry for the confusion. The actuals are right.

On Mar 19 11:41 AM Ron Shuttleworth wrote:

> your right. It should have said "to" not "by".The actual numbers
> are correct.

Is the Newspapers' Shift in Focus to the Web Too Late?

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:41:50 -0400

your right. It should have said "to" not "by".The actual numbers are correct.

On Mar 19 09:14 AM jay fredrickson wrote:

> This article has some bad numbers in it. If revenue has fallen 67%
> in 3 years, how could it fall another 20% and then have a four year
> decline of 50%. If this story would have run in a newspaper, an editor
> would have caught the gross miscalculations in the second papragraph,
> the three year revenue has fallen by 40% and not the 67% cited.
Does
> the writer of this story want to post a corrected version, or should
> we wait for the error correction to run tomorrow>

General Motors: Time to Shed Some Brands

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:22:37 -0500

I don't claim to be an expert. It should be treated as an observation by a typical consumer (although one with a pretty good idea about branding). I'm actually quite surprised that SA syndicated it.

My inability to distinguish between a Malibu and a Bonneville, or any other GM manufactured product is not my issue. It is (and has been) GM's issue for a long time. It is GM's responsibility to socialize its brands with consumers. And that is the point of the post...it has failed to do this.

BTW, my dad's 5 year old Malibu bears no resemblance whatsoever to the 2009 Malibu. There is no design continuity that helps retain long-term brand identity and bouy resale value.

IF GM can make the appropriate changes, it has hope.

On Feb 19 07:17 AM Miken wrote:

> Your inability to recognize the highly acclaimed Malibu says it all.
>
>
> Pontiac and Chevrolet are the same cars as long as you can remember?
> Let me refresh your memory; GTO, Corvette, Bonneville, Impala. Are
> you able to distinguish which are Pontiacs vs Chevrolets?
>
> Sadly, everyone thinks they're an expert and simply regurgitates
> an article that they read somewhere with no original thought. This
> author is an excellent example of my point.
>
> I do agree completely with one thing this author writes:
>
> "I don't really have any business commenting on the auto industry.
> "

General Motors: Time to Shed Some Brands

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:55:25 -0500

Agreed!

On Feb 19 04:11 AM PeteK wrote:

> The First thing to Shed is UAW.
> Otherwise, not much will work for GM.
> Same thing with Boeing. Not good.

The Recurring Technology Services Model Comes Home to Roost... Kinda

Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:54:02 -0500

Hi abcde_98;

Thanks for the comment. I was trying to stay away from bundling the hardware model into this. 99% of the businesses that I see are focusing on the services model. About 15% to 20% have some type of hardware solution bundled (where there is usually unknown financing risk). Even outsourced hosting is of minimal incremental value to many of the solutions I see - unless bundled with security, monitoring and active traffic management. The "cloud" is relatively ubiquitous and commoditized.

Research in Motion's Miss Should Not Surprise

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:33:53 -0500

Check today's link from Morgan Stanley regarding AAPL. It doesn't matter how good the device is...it's about how confident people are upgrading. Many will, but certainly not enough to meet expectations. Read my post again. I didn't say people would run away screaming with their hair on fire. I have never commented on the quality of the devices. My point is that the world economy would cause people to delay upgrade decisions, resulting in disappointing results for all of the smartphone vendors.

AAPL):+Morgan+Stanley+negative+on+the+stock/4228218.html'>www.streetinsider.com/...

On Dec 03 02:27 PM Hayweed wrote:

> Right on Rimm wrong on Apple. Apple has a niche with high end consumers
> which buufers it more than Rimm. Rimm also has problems with the
> storm and the bold while Apple has worked out any kinks with their
> phone. The app store is the big differentiator which RImm and Nokia
> have no answer for