The Sage of Bay Street's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/329235/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1080041/comments?source=feed#comment-13612791 13612791 Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:11:09 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1087931/comments?source=feed#comment-13610141 13610141
If you would take the time to get away from the grandstanding and female chauvinism, have a look at Lululemon's management or perhaps more accurately the lack thereof. There are only one or two people in the executive ranks that has any depth of management experience. The big gun on the Board that has any significant somewhat related retailing experience is, you guessed it, a man. The fact of the matter is that for a business to maintain itself at these kinds of growth rates it does not need number crunchers, but a review of the capabilities and experience of the people running the company. The experience base in running this company resides to a significant extent in the Board. The entrepreneurs were unbelievably successful in getting the company to this spot (luck also never hurts), but beyond this one needs to examine the competency and capability of the professional managers running the company. There are those of us who might feel, without being attacked by relative investment newbies, that management may give one cause to pause.

Here is Christine Days' background:

Prior to Lululemon, Christine spent 20 years at Starbucks where she learned the intricacies of high growth business development in a strong cultural company. She held several key senior management positions, most recently as President of the Asia Pacific Group of Starbucks Coffee International. Earlier, she served in various capacities including Senior Vice President, North American Finance and Administration and Vice President of Sales and Operations for Business Alliances. Currently, Christine also serves as member of the Board of Directors for the Rick Hansen Foundation in Vancouver.

I don't know about you but I am trying to figure out the connections between her background and experience and how Lululemon will be taken to the next step.

Here is another Starbucks colleague on the Board. Sound a bit nepotistic?

Director. Michael Casey has been a member of our Board since October 2007. He retired from Starbucks Corporation in October, 2007, where he had served as Senior Vice President and CFO from August 1995 to September 1997, Executive Vice President, CFO and Chief Administrative Officer from September 1997 to October 2007. Subsequent to retirement he served as a Senior Advisor to Starbucks Corporation from October 2007 to May 2008 and from November 2008 to present. Prior to joining Starbucks, Mr. Casey was Executive Vice President and CFO for Family Restaurant, Inc. and President and CEO of EI Torito Restaurants, Inc.

Another coffee/restaurant guy. No clothing retail experience.

Finally, here is the big gun on retailing:

Director. Thomas G. Stemberg. Thomas G. Stemberg has been a member of the Board since December 2005. Since March 2007, he has been the managing partner of Highland Consumer Fund, a venture capital firm. From February 2005 until March 2007, he was a venture partner with Highland Capital Partners. Mr. Stemberg co-founded Staples, Inc., an office supplies retailer, serving as its Chairman from 1988 to 2005, and as its CEO from 1986 until 2002. He serves on the board of directors of CarMax, Inc., a retailer of used cars, PETsMART, Inc., a retailer of pet supplies and products, and Guitar Center, a retailer of musical instruments. He received an AB in Physical Science from Harvard University, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School.

Well at least we all know where these guys go for coffee and buy their business supplies.

Don't misunderstand me. These guys have done a great job getting the company here. But the next step? I don't buy these hockey stick projections without looking at management's capabilities. And the bench strength of management and the board is arguably less than compelling. There aren't a lot of people hanging around that might not know the difference between Spandex, Lycra and nylon (nor do I).]]> Fri, 11 Jan 2013 18:10:36 -0500
If you would take the time to get away from the grandstanding and female chauvinism, have a look at Lululemon's management or perhaps more accurately the lack thereof. There are only one or two people in the executive ranks that has any depth of management experience. The big gun on the Board that has any significant somewhat related retailing experience is, you guessed it, a man. The fact of the matter is that for a business to maintain itself at these kinds of growth rates it does not need number crunchers, but a review of the capabilities and experience of the people running the company. The experience base in running this company resides to a significant extent in the Board. The entrepreneurs were unbelievably successful in getting the company to this spot (luck also never hurts), but beyond this one needs to examine the competency and capability of the professional managers running the company. There are those of us who might feel, without being attacked by relative investment newbies, that management may give one cause to pause.

Here is Christine Days' background:

Prior to Lululemon, Christine spent 20 years at Starbucks where she learned the intricacies of high growth business development in a strong cultural company. She held several key senior management positions, most recently as President of the Asia Pacific Group of Starbucks Coffee International. Earlier, she served in various capacities including Senior Vice President, North American Finance and Administration and Vice President of Sales and Operations for Business Alliances. Currently, Christine also serves as member of the Board of Directors for the Rick Hansen Foundation in Vancouver.

I don't know about you but I am trying to figure out the connections between her background and experience and how Lululemon will be taken to the next step.

Here is another Starbucks colleague on the Board. Sound a bit nepotistic?

Director. Michael Casey has been a member of our Board since October 2007. He retired from Starbucks Corporation in October, 2007, where he had served as Senior Vice President and CFO from August 1995 to September 1997, Executive Vice President, CFO and Chief Administrative Officer from September 1997 to October 2007. Subsequent to retirement he served as a Senior Advisor to Starbucks Corporation from October 2007 to May 2008 and from November 2008 to present. Prior to joining Starbucks, Mr. Casey was Executive Vice President and CFO for Family Restaurant, Inc. and President and CEO of EI Torito Restaurants, Inc.

Another coffee/restaurant guy. No clothing retail experience.

Finally, here is the big gun on retailing:

Director. Thomas G. Stemberg. Thomas G. Stemberg has been a member of the Board since December 2005. Since March 2007, he has been the managing partner of Highland Consumer Fund, a venture capital firm. From February 2005 until March 2007, he was a venture partner with Highland Capital Partners. Mr. Stemberg co-founded Staples, Inc., an office supplies retailer, serving as its Chairman from 1988 to 2005, and as its CEO from 1986 until 2002. He serves on the board of directors of CarMax, Inc., a retailer of used cars, PETsMART, Inc., a retailer of pet supplies and products, and Guitar Center, a retailer of musical instruments. He received an AB in Physical Science from Harvard University, and an MBA from the Harvard Business School.

Well at least we all know where these guys go for coffee and buy their business supplies.

Don't misunderstand me. These guys have done a great job getting the company here. But the next step? I don't buy these hockey stick projections without looking at management's capabilities. And the bench strength of management and the board is arguably less than compelling. There aren't a lot of people hanging around that might not know the difference between Spandex, Lycra and nylon (nor do I).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/985951/comments?source=feed#comment-11327881 11327881 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 12:10:34 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/768481/comments?source=feed#comment-8017051 8017051 Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:30:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/768481/comments?source=feed#comment-7979031 7979031 Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:07:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/322117/comments?source=feed#comment-2211281 2211281
Nokia is in the midst of changing it's business model. One would expect them to lose money. Motorla and HTC are fringe players.

From Apple's 10Q:
"The gross margin percentage in the first quarter of 2012 was 44.7% compared to 38.5% in the first quarter of 2011. The year-over year increase in gross margin was largely driven by a more favorable sales mix towards products with higher gross margins, particularly iPhone, and to a lesser extent lower commodity and other product costs and leverage on fixed costs of higher net sales.

The Company expects to experience decreases in its gross margin percentage in future periods, as compared to levels achieved during the first quarter of 2012, largely due to a higher mix of new and innovative products with flat or reduced pricing that have higher cost structures and deliver greater value to customers and a stronger U.S. dollar, and potential future component cost and other cost increases."

I guess that the Company's expectation are more modest that many of those posting here.

More:

Foreign Currency Risk

"In general, the Company is a net receiver of currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Accordingly, changes in exchange rates, and in particular a strengthening of the U.S. dollar, will negatively affect the Company’s net sales and gross margins as expressed in U.S. dollars."

I guess you guys are all cheerleaders for a weak US dollar. That are many factors driving Apple's profitability other than handset sales.]]> Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:21:56 -0500
Nokia is in the midst of changing it's business model. One would expect them to lose money. Motorla and HTC are fringe players.

From Apple's 10Q:
"The gross margin percentage in the first quarter of 2012 was 44.7% compared to 38.5% in the first quarter of 2011. The year-over year increase in gross margin was largely driven by a more favorable sales mix towards products with higher gross margins, particularly iPhone, and to a lesser extent lower commodity and other product costs and leverage on fixed costs of higher net sales.

The Company expects to experience decreases in its gross margin percentage in future periods, as compared to levels achieved during the first quarter of 2012, largely due to a higher mix of new and innovative products with flat or reduced pricing that have higher cost structures and deliver greater value to customers and a stronger U.S. dollar, and potential future component cost and other cost increases."

I guess that the Company's expectation are more modest that many of those posting here.

More:

Foreign Currency Risk

"In general, the Company is a net receiver of currencies other than the U.S. dollar. Accordingly, changes in exchange rates, and in particular a strengthening of the U.S. dollar, will negatively affect the Company’s net sales and gross margins as expressed in U.S. dollars."

I guess you guys are all cheerleaders for a weak US dollar. That are many factors driving Apple's profitability other than handset sales.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/322117/comments?source=feed#comment-2207951 2207951
You might say that Mr. Gates is to business strategy what Heinz Guderian, the father of the blitzkrieg, was to military strategy. Germany didn't invent the tank or the bomber; but the German command understood, in a way that the British or the French did not, how these inventions changed the nature of war, and very nearly ended up conquering the world. Microsoft didn't invent either the personal computer or the point-and-click interface; but Mr. Gates understood, in a way that other contenders for empire did not, how these inventions changed the nature of business competition, and some think that he has come equally close to GLOBAL CONQUEST.

You could say that each of the two other companies one might have expected to dominate the New Economy was the victim of a flawed philosophical premise. I.B.M.'s fallacy was that of crude materialism: accustomed to providing software free with its mainframes, the computer giant believed that market power rested in the hands of manufacturers, and did not realize its mistake until far too late. Apple, by contrast, suffered from naive idealism: its managers believed that having the better idea, the better product, was in itself enough to ensure victory in the marketplace.

Only Mr. Gates seems to have realized the importance, in this new competitive realm, of ''network externalities,'' which is economese for the incentive most of us have to use the same software -- or video format, or typewriter keyboard -- that everyone else uses. It's not a new concept, and around the time Mr. Gates was starting to build his empire economists were working out a theory of how companies should conduct themselves when network externalities are crucial. (Perhaps the leader among these theorists was Berkeley's Carl Shapiro; not coincidentally, Mr. Shapiro took a leave in the mid-90's to become a top official at the Justice Department's antitrust division.) The essence of that theory is that you have to lose money to make money: your product must initially be sold cheaply, even given away, until enough people are using it that the rest feel that they have no alternative.

This seems obvious now, but in the 1980's Apple thought that simply because the Macintosh was insanely great it could be sold at a premium price from day one. It was Mr. Gates who understood the power of ubiquity, and used that knowledge to build an ASSAILABLE market position. ''Windows 95 is Macintosh 89,'' declared the losers bitterly when the struggle was all over. They were right, but that in itself tells you how much better Mr. Gates played the game."

Published New York Times, January 16, 2000.

Of Companies and Countries Published: January 23, 2000
To the Editor:

''A Company Worth More Than Spain?'' (Market Watch, Dec. 26) noted how Microsoft's market value was about equal to Spain's gross domestic product.

Hey, I've been to Spain. Windows 98 works better.

DAN FRIEDMAN New York City, Dec. 26, 1999

Boy, how familiar does this sounds with the musings on this forum. Those who don't learn from history are deemed to repeat it. Microsoft lived and Apple was dead. Ooops. That's the thing about the stock market. You are never sure what's out there. Just one person's opinion.]]> Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:07:44 -0500
You might say that Mr. Gates is to business strategy what Heinz Guderian, the father of the blitzkrieg, was to military strategy. Germany didn't invent the tank or the bomber; but the German command understood, in a way that the British or the French did not, how these inventions changed the nature of war, and very nearly ended up conquering the world. Microsoft didn't invent either the personal computer or the point-and-click interface; but Mr. Gates understood, in a way that other contenders for empire did not, how these inventions changed the nature of business competition, and some think that he has come equally close to GLOBAL CONQUEST.

You could say that each of the two other companies one might have expected to dominate the New Economy was the victim of a flawed philosophical premise. I.B.M.'s fallacy was that of crude materialism: accustomed to providing software free with its mainframes, the computer giant believed that market power rested in the hands of manufacturers, and did not realize its mistake until far too late. Apple, by contrast, suffered from naive idealism: its managers believed that having the better idea, the better product, was in itself enough to ensure victory in the marketplace.

Only Mr. Gates seems to have realized the importance, in this new competitive realm, of ''network externalities,'' which is economese for the incentive most of us have to use the same software -- or video format, or typewriter keyboard -- that everyone else uses. It's not a new concept, and around the time Mr. Gates was starting to build his empire economists were working out a theory of how companies should conduct themselves when network externalities are crucial. (Perhaps the leader among these theorists was Berkeley's Carl Shapiro; not coincidentally, Mr. Shapiro took a leave in the mid-90's to become a top official at the Justice Department's antitrust division.) The essence of that theory is that you have to lose money to make money: your product must initially be sold cheaply, even given away, until enough people are using it that the rest feel that they have no alternative.

This seems obvious now, but in the 1980's Apple thought that simply because the Macintosh was insanely great it could be sold at a premium price from day one. It was Mr. Gates who understood the power of ubiquity, and used that knowledge to build an ASSAILABLE market position. ''Windows 95 is Macintosh 89,'' declared the losers bitterly when the struggle was all over. They were right, but that in itself tells you how much better Mr. Gates played the game."

Published New York Times, January 16, 2000.

Of Companies and Countries Published: January 23, 2000
To the Editor:

''A Company Worth More Than Spain?'' (Market Watch, Dec. 26) noted how Microsoft's market value was about equal to Spain's gross domestic product.

Hey, I've been to Spain. Windows 98 works better.

DAN FRIEDMAN New York City, Dec. 26, 1999

Boy, how familiar does this sounds with the musings on this forum. Those who don't learn from history are deemed to repeat it. Microsoft lived and Apple was dead. Ooops. That's the thing about the stock market. You are never sure what's out there. Just one person's opinion.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/322117/comments?source=feed#comment-2203713 2203713
There has been little, if any, mention of Apple's business model and whether it has long term staying power. Apple does not control very much, as is the case for most companies. But they have been amazing at controlling the things they can control. They have been superb at marketing and product design, supply chain management, inventory control, etc. They have executed flawlessly. In my opinion, the question is whether they can continue to execute flawlessly. The projections on handsets sold, market share etc. are simply that, projections. Who knows. But can they continue to execute flawlessly? I don't know. I wish I did. But one thing I do know, is that corporations, like people, sooner or later make a mistake. In the case of the stock market, mistakes can be devastating for the stock price. Cheap labor in China, well managed suppliers, no supplier brownouts or shortages that cramp production. The possibility of a strike at a lithium mine in Chile that cuts the supply of batteries. Right now it's perfection. But in my opinion the ship is getting pretty large to steer. As long as a change in course is not required, everything is clear sailing!!! Can someone please share their opinions as to why it's riskier to be out of the stock than in it? Thank you.]]> Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:11:19 -0500
There has been little, if any, mention of Apple's business model and whether it has long term staying power. Apple does not control very much, as is the case for most companies. But they have been amazing at controlling the things they can control. They have been superb at marketing and product design, supply chain management, inventory control, etc. They have executed flawlessly. In my opinion, the question is whether they can continue to execute flawlessly. The projections on handsets sold, market share etc. are simply that, projections. Who knows. But can they continue to execute flawlessly? I don't know. I wish I did. But one thing I do know, is that corporations, like people, sooner or later make a mistake. In the case of the stock market, mistakes can be devastating for the stock price. Cheap labor in China, well managed suppliers, no supplier brownouts or shortages that cramp production. The possibility of a strike at a lithium mine in Chile that cuts the supply of batteries. Right now it's perfection. But in my opinion the ship is getting pretty large to steer. As long as a change in course is not required, everything is clear sailing!!! Can someone please share their opinions as to why it's riskier to be out of the stock than in it? Thank you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/322008/comments?source=feed#comment-2203675 2203675 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:57:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/322008/comments?source=feed#comment-2203330 2203330
As an admitted Apple shareholder "wannabee" (no sour grapes here, great management and performance is being rewarded). I sure hope like heck that our friends and co-workers in China keep wages low and those factories humming without unions and without any meaningful labor legislation or environmental standards. Does anyone know the Chinese word for nationalization? Hope it's not in their vocabulary. I'm just enjoying the run in the stock upwards even as a spectator!!!!!!!!

Thank you.]]> Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:27:55 -0500
As an admitted Apple shareholder "wannabee" (no sour grapes here, great management and performance is being rewarded). I sure hope like heck that our friends and co-workers in China keep wages low and those factories humming without unions and without any meaningful labor legislation or environmental standards. Does anyone know the Chinese word for nationalization? Hope it's not in their vocabulary. I'm just enjoying the run in the stock upwards even as a spectator!!!!!!!!

Thank you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/320703/comments?source=feed#comment-2195233 2195233 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:12:02 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/320703/comments?source=feed#comment-2195144 2195144 "I once wrote an article saying Windows Phone 7 will bomb. It did, but now my theory will really be put to the test. This new Nokia phone is arguably the most exciting looking smart phone on the market, they have a huge publicity campaign planned, its specs and price perfectly position it at mid market level rather than going after the high end iPhone directly, and its got an unbreakable light happy sporty feel about it that sits nicely apart from the rather glass and steel like iPhone. So in terms of hardware, it is not only exceedingly well executed, it offers something really new, it's a sort of yin to the iPhone yang. No Android phone comes anywhere near this Nokia in terms of hardware design. This is the first phone that will worry Jonathon Ive at Apple.

On the software side, Microsoft have fixed the missing features in their OS, they now have popular programs such as Skype, Spotify and Angry Birds in their App Store. Nokia have included a free turn by turn navigation App that would cost a lot of money on the iPhone, and they have also included a free online/offline music radio App that works a bit like Pandora. Although the Apple App store is much bigger than the Microsoft App Store, the vast majority of Apple's Apps are low quality slavish imitations of each other, so only the thin top layer of cream really matters. In fact, philosophically speaking, the ideal solution for an upstart with limited market share is probably a "by invitation only" App store that improves customer experience and retailer incentive by limiting itself to proven incumbents (especially in the absence of sale or return App Store shopping models). Android's GUI has improved a little, but it's still basically an ugly chaotic geeky OS.

In conclusion then, on paper this phone is absolute dynamite and should totally transform the fortunes of Nokia and Windows Phone. Nokia is the traditional King of mobile phones, Apple is the King who stole his throne, and Samsung is the new contendor. The laws of nature and capitalism suggest the battle will gradually coalesce into two major powers, and this new phone makes the future look a bit more like a battle between Apple and Nokia rather than Apple and Samsung." Interesting thoughts. Comments? Thoughts?]]> Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:36:44 -0500 "I once wrote an article saying Windows Phone 7 will bomb. It did, but now my theory will really be put to the test. This new Nokia phone is arguably the most exciting looking smart phone on the market, they have a huge publicity campaign planned, its specs and price perfectly position it at mid market level rather than going after the high end iPhone directly, and its got an unbreakable light happy sporty feel about it that sits nicely apart from the rather glass and steel like iPhone. So in terms of hardware, it is not only exceedingly well executed, it offers something really new, it's a sort of yin to the iPhone yang. No Android phone comes anywhere near this Nokia in terms of hardware design. This is the first phone that will worry Jonathon Ive at Apple.

On the software side, Microsoft have fixed the missing features in their OS, they now have popular programs such as Skype, Spotify and Angry Birds in their App Store. Nokia have included a free turn by turn navigation App that would cost a lot of money on the iPhone, and they have also included a free online/offline music radio App that works a bit like Pandora. Although the Apple App store is much bigger than the Microsoft App Store, the vast majority of Apple's Apps are low quality slavish imitations of each other, so only the thin top layer of cream really matters. In fact, philosophically speaking, the ideal solution for an upstart with limited market share is probably a "by invitation only" App store that improves customer experience and retailer incentive by limiting itself to proven incumbents (especially in the absence of sale or return App Store shopping models). Android's GUI has improved a little, but it's still basically an ugly chaotic geeky OS.

In conclusion then, on paper this phone is absolute dynamite and should totally transform the fortunes of Nokia and Windows Phone. Nokia is the traditional King of mobile phones, Apple is the King who stole his throne, and Samsung is the new contendor. The laws of nature and capitalism suggest the battle will gradually coalesce into two major powers, and this new phone makes the future look a bit more like a battle between Apple and Nokia rather than Apple and Samsung." Interesting thoughts. Comments? Thoughts?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/320756/comments?source=feed#comment-2195132 2195132 "I once wrote an article saying Windows Phone 7 will bomb. It did, but now my theory will really be put to the test. This new Nokia phone is arguably the most exciting looking smart phone on the market, they have a huge publicity campaign planned, its specs and price perfectly position it at mid market level rather than going after the high end iPhone directly, and its got an unbreakable light happy sporty feel about it that sits nicely apart from the rather glass and steel like iPhone. So in terms of hardware, it is not only exceedingly well executed, it offers something really new, it's a sort of yin to the iPhone yang. No Android phone comes anywhere near this Nokia in terms of hardware design. This is the first phone that will worry Jonathon Ive at Apple.

On the software side, Microsoft have fixed the missing features in their OS, they now have popular programs such as Skype, Spotify and Angry Birds in their App Store. Nokia have included a free turn by turn navigation App that would cost a lot of money on the iPhone, and they have also included a free online/offline music radio App that works a bit like Pandora. Although the Apple App store is much bigger than the Microsoft App store, the vast majority of Apple's Apps are low quality slavish imitations of each other, so only the thin top layer of cream really matters. In fact, philosophically speaking, the ideal solution for an upstart with limited market share is probably a "by invitation only" App store that improves customer experience and retailer incentive by limiting itself to proven incumbents (especially in the absence of sale or return App Store shopping models). Android's GUI has improved a little, but it's still basically an ugly chaotic geeky OS.

In conclusion then, on paper this phone is absolute dynamite and should totally transform the fortunes of Nokia and Windows Phone. Nokia is the traditional King of mobile phones, Apple is the King who stole his throne, and Samsung is the new contendor. The laws of nature and capitalism suggest the battle will gradually coalesce into two major powers, and this new phone (the Nokia Lumia 800) makes the future look a bit more like a battle between Apple and Nokia rather than Apple and Samsung." Food for thought. As to where this leaves Microsoft? Perhaps the author and others have some thoughts.]]> Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:32:47 -0500 "I once wrote an article saying Windows Phone 7 will bomb. It did, but now my theory will really be put to the test. This new Nokia phone is arguably the most exciting looking smart phone on the market, they have a huge publicity campaign planned, its specs and price perfectly position it at mid market level rather than going after the high end iPhone directly, and its got an unbreakable light happy sporty feel about it that sits nicely apart from the rather glass and steel like iPhone. So in terms of hardware, it is not only exceedingly well executed, it offers something really new, it's a sort of yin to the iPhone yang. No Android phone comes anywhere near this Nokia in terms of hardware design. This is the first phone that will worry Jonathon Ive at Apple.

On the software side, Microsoft have fixed the missing features in their OS, they now have popular programs such as Skype, Spotify and Angry Birds in their App Store. Nokia have included a free turn by turn navigation App that would cost a lot of money on the iPhone, and they have also included a free online/offline music radio App that works a bit like Pandora. Although the Apple App store is much bigger than the Microsoft App store, the vast majority of Apple's Apps are low quality slavish imitations of each other, so only the thin top layer of cream really matters. In fact, philosophically speaking, the ideal solution for an upstart with limited market share is probably a "by invitation only" App store that improves customer experience and retailer incentive by limiting itself to proven incumbents (especially in the absence of sale or return App Store shopping models). Android's GUI has improved a little, but it's still basically an ugly chaotic geeky OS.

In conclusion then, on paper this phone is absolute dynamite and should totally transform the fortunes of Nokia and Windows Phone. Nokia is the traditional King of mobile phones, Apple is the King who stole his throne, and Samsung is the new contendor. The laws of nature and capitalism suggest the battle will gradually coalesce into two major powers, and this new phone (the Nokia Lumia 800) makes the future look a bit more like a battle between Apple and Nokia rather than Apple and Samsung." Food for thought. As to where this leaves Microsoft? Perhaps the author and others have some thoughts.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/320756/comments?source=feed#comment-2193286 2193286 Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:11:05 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/320756/comments?source=feed#comment-2191723 2191723 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:07:00 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/320756/comments?source=feed#comment-2188710 2188710 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:07:45 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/110898?source=feed#comment-2188697 2188697 ICS) (Android 4.0) and Mango. Mango was installed on the Nokia Lumia 800. It's absolutely the best experience I've had with a smart
phone. I traded the handset for the Samsung Galaxy Nexus (ICS) and ended up back with the iPhone. I think that the users still find the iPhone the easiest to use with the most pleasant user experience (simple). So I believe that Nokia has an uphill battle. Keep in mind that for consumer choice Apple has kept things simple. One model at a time with different memory capacity. Samsung, LG and HTC have a totally different product strategy it seems. In 2011 it was almost a new handset a month from each manufacturer. If it confuses me, I believe that it confuses other. I think that if Nokia keeps its product offerings simple it has a shot. But for those that remember, Sony had the better product with Betamax and still lost to JVC's VHS.]]> Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:59:45 -0500 ICS) (Android 4.0) and Mango. Mango was installed on the Nokia Lumia 800. It's absolutely the best experience I've had with a smart
phone. I traded the handset for the Samsung Galaxy Nexus (ICS) and ended up back with the iPhone. I think that the users still find the iPhone the easiest to use with the most pleasant user experience (simple). So I believe that Nokia has an uphill battle. Keep in mind that for consumer choice Apple has kept things simple. One model at a time with different memory capacity. Samsung, LG and HTC have a totally different product strategy it seems. In 2011 it was almost a new handset a month from each manufacturer. If it confuses me, I believe that it confuses other. I think that if Nokia keeps its product offerings simple it has a shot. But for those that remember, Sony had the better product with Betamax and still lost to JVC's VHS.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/312206/comments?source=feed#comment-2177276 2177276 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:01:00 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/318793/comments?source=feed#comment-2177265 2177265 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 07:35:39 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113110/comments?source=feed#comment-345824 345824 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:55:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113040/comments?source=feed#comment-345775 345775 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:00:26 -0500