Apple, Android, And The Future Of The Smartphone [View article]
Ashraf
You make some good points.
Samsung will come under pressure from the lower cost Android phones. Samsung is already coming under criticism for its latest Galaxy offering as being flawed.
Google is currently putting out some very compelling software. The problem is fragmentation. Not all Android phones are the same in both hardware and software. For many this may not be a problem, but consumers may be confused when they buy a new phone and it doesn't quite work like their friend's who also has a new phone.
As for profits. What you say about volume and profits is not necessarily true. Why is it that Apple with about a 20% share in the mobile space makes 70% of the profits? Why is it that Apple with 5% of the pc market makes almost half of the pc profits?
Apple: The iPad Faces Unprecedented Competition [View article]
From Intel's point of view if they replace the higher margin core chips with these cheaper Silvermont chips what does this do to their margin's and revenue?
Since these are fast enough it means that PC's and tablets and phones can become disposable. But it also means that the high end chips are toast.
Will this new chip double or triple the volume of sales or does this kill the company?
They offer too much tainted opinion and drown out those who espouse positions contrary to their own.
Cnbc has turned more into a business entertainment show than an objective news source. So I stopped wasting my time with them.
As for pt #3
I believe you are mistaken. You are assuming the market is rational. The market is subjective and emotional. More so with apple. 'Objective' measurements like the one you use here are useless when trying to value Apple. For example why does US Steel command a higher PE than apple? Or amazon? Try using these metrics as guides to explain how the market votes with these 3 stocks.
The Bigger Picture Apple Investors Are Missing [View article]
Henry
If you look at china there are 11 apple stores for a billion people clustered in a few cities. There are hundreds of stores in the US
If you look at market share in US apple has 50%+ marketshare. Now there are differences in economic prosperity and all, but the reason for the store is to show off the product and guide the consumer. Samsung competes on price and features and whatever. Apple essentially has one phone.
The value of the product is best shown by people who are enthusiastic and can show the value of the product. You don't get that at best buy.
But you are entitled to your opinion and your suppositions of my assumptions are wild. I made no reference to apple discount phones. Perhaps that is what you want, but that is not what I wrote.
If you are talking Krugman, although he is a Nobel winner, his opinions are wild. His political positions overwhelm his economic analysis. Don't use his defense of bad political policy as good economic analysis.
It is the same with those on the other side who say that lower taxes always increase govt revenue. The laffer curve was good to illustrate a very specific circumstance.
Taken to its logical conclusion they would argue a 0.05% tax rate brings in more revenue than a 30% one. This is laughable, but they argue this in all seriousness.
It is all about balance and my argument is our tax policy and economic structure is not balanced.
Seriously. Apple was hurting after years of floundering with no real direction
I would characterize Microsoft's investment as good for both sides. Microsoft has never been about charity.
Microsoft got resolution of patent issues with Apple and the government off its case. Apple was held up as viable competition in the desktop. Without them a monopoly case is more viable.
Microsoft: The Destruction Of Shareholder Value -- A Failure In Corporate Development [View article]
I would like to correct some misconceptions on your part:
1) you imply that Microsoft drove innovation. On the contrary Microsoft was very good at many things but was mainly a follower. It's Windows system is a copy of MacOS. Office was a bundle of its copy of the dominant productivity applications of the day (at a reduced price). From this base they were able to incrementally leverage their position to gain a more strategic position in the enterprise.
2) "Google has taken the opposite approach: give away the operating system and the applications - make your money by providing the services." Google makes money on ads not services.
3) Microsoft has lost its grip because of the growth of the Internet - which coincidentally gives Google strength. Software as service and the ease of the Internet has disrupted Microsoft which has not evolved with the changing landscape. This is where they have missed Bill Gates. He would have recognized the shift and reacted.
So while Microsoft has strategic vision, I posit that its vision is wrong. I do not have a suggestion for what Microsoft should do or I would be its CEO, but it seems its strategy is wrong. This does not mean that it will not be a powerful and profitable company for years, just that its energies are directed in the wrong place and no amount of research will cure this.
You are responding to two different people with opposing views..
With regards to the 'stimulus bill' if the govt spends $800B dollars regardless of how it is done they are still spending it. I will agree that creating demand to build things is more impactful than a tax cut which generates more disposable income, but 800 large is still 800 large. The low wage taxpayer will not save the tax cut but spend it. A rich tax payer may save it or spend it.
My point about the money multiplier with an economy with a more robust manufacturing sector means that the value of the multiplier is higher than in a service economy.
I think we are in general agreement on how an economy functions. However you are mixing me up with my friend here who does not agree.
I am not mistaken that all service jobs are low wage. I am well aware that a McDonalds service counter person and a lawyer are both service center jobs.
I went to the trouble to illustrate how money multiplies with a significant manufacturing sector that does not hold true with service jobs.
Please explain to me how Keynesian has been proven wrong on its claims. The primary difference between monetarists and keynesians with regard to gdp growth is the weight of different variables in the same equation. Essentially monetarists believe govt crowds out investment while keynesians believe that one does not necessarily push out the other.
If you pay attention Reagan's economic policies while publicly espoused as monetarist had a large keynesian component to them. His policies are always held up as 'proof' that monetarism works and keynes does not.
Please provide some examples that disprove keynesian theories.
I have heard this argument before and it seems to me that those that hold ( at least publicly ) to monetarist policies over 'keynesian' make this argument. Essentially it is those who say government is bad until they want govt to step in ( like pumping $2 trillion) into the world bank centers for bailing them out of their gambles gone bad.
Your last paragraph means that you do not understand my explanation of the money multiplier. But that is ok
Momentum Plays: Why Investors Fear Google Could Be The Next Apple [View article]
Consumers seem to value the trade of privacy for utility and Google is monetizing that.
Any Room For The Fox? [View article]
html5 is not the same as a native app.
also if mozilla does a new rev of their 'os' every week as they do with the browser it will be a non starter.
Apple, Android, And The Future Of The Smartphone [View article]
You make some good points.
Samsung will come under pressure from the lower cost Android phones. Samsung is already coming under criticism for its latest Galaxy offering as being flawed.
Google is currently putting out some very compelling software. The problem is fragmentation. Not all Android phones are the same in both hardware and software. For many this may not be a problem, but consumers may be confused when they buy a new phone and it doesn't quite work like their friend's who also has a new phone.
As for profits. What you say about volume and profits is not necessarily true. Why is it that Apple with about a 20% share in the mobile space makes 70% of the profits? Why is it that Apple with 5% of the pc market makes almost half of the pc profits?
iTunes, Apple's Golden Goose... Really? [View article]
Apple Implements My Plan: Here Is What It Should Do Next [View article]
What would Apple gain by buying a money losing telco? How would this affect its relationships with all other telcos?
What does it gain from Netflix? Are the distribution deals with the movie companies transferable?
As for China Mobile, would the Chinese government allow a foreign company to invest in it? Would they want to have Apple telling it what to do?
Apple: The iPad Faces Unprecedented Competition [View article]
Since these are fast enough it means that PC's and tablets and phones can become disposable. But it also means that the high end chips are toast.
Will this new chip double or triple the volume of sales or does this kill the company?
The Apple You Don't Know [View article]
They offer too much tainted opinion and drown out those who espouse positions contrary to their own.
Cnbc has turned more into a business entertainment show than an objective news source. So I stopped wasting my time with them.
As for pt #3
I believe you are mistaken. You are assuming the market is rational. The market is subjective and emotional. More so with apple. 'Objective' measurements like the one you use here are useless when trying to value Apple. For example why does US Steel command a higher PE than apple? Or amazon? Try using these metrics as guides to explain how the market votes with these 3 stocks.
The Bigger Picture Apple Investors Are Missing [View article]
Apple has had some recent public and not so public stumbles which I believe is the cause of their problems.
They need to fix their software. We will know how they are doing in a few weeks.
The Bigger Picture Apple Investors Are Missing [View article]
If you look at china there are 11 apple stores for a billion people clustered in a few cities. There are hundreds of stores in the US
If you look at market share in US apple has 50%+ marketshare. Now there are differences in economic prosperity and all, but the reason for the store is to show off the product and guide the consumer. Samsung competes on price and features and whatever. Apple essentially has one phone.
The value of the product is best shown by people who are enthusiastic and can show the value of the product. You don't get that at best buy.
But you are entitled to your opinion and your suppositions of my assumptions are wild. I made no reference to apple discount phones. Perhaps that is what you want, but that is not what I wrote.
Or perhaps you just want a straw man to rant.
Please do not include me in your rants.
Because Debt Is Money [View article]
It is the same with those on the other side who say that lower taxes always increase govt revenue. The laffer curve was good to illustrate a very specific circumstance.
Taken to its logical conclusion they would argue a 0.05% tax rate brings in more revenue than a 30% one. This is laughable, but they argue this in all seriousness.
It is all about balance and my argument is our tax policy and economic structure is not balanced.
Apple's Dirty Little Secret [View article]
Seriously. Apple was hurting after years of floundering with no real direction
I would characterize Microsoft's investment as good for both sides. Microsoft has never been about charity.
Microsoft got resolution of patent issues with Apple and the government off its case. Apple was held up as viable competition in the desktop. Without them a monopoly case is more viable.
The Apple You Don't Know [View article]
It has been pointed out for some time that what is commonly referred to as cash is a broader definition of fairly liquid cash like instruments.
Your other point on the lack of growth of the company dating back to last June is more important and of more recent origin.
Microsoft: The Destruction Of Shareholder Value -- A Failure In Corporate Development [View article]
1) you imply that Microsoft drove innovation. On the contrary Microsoft was very good at many things but was mainly a follower. It's Windows system is a copy of MacOS. Office was a bundle of its copy of the dominant productivity applications of the day (at a reduced price). From this base they were able to incrementally leverage their position to gain a more strategic position in the enterprise.
2) "Google has taken the opposite approach: give away the operating system and the applications - make your money by providing the services." Google makes money on ads not services.
3) Microsoft has lost its grip because of the growth of the Internet - which coincidentally gives Google strength. Software as service and the ease of the Internet has disrupted Microsoft which has not evolved with the changing landscape. This is where they have missed Bill Gates. He would have recognized the shift and reacted.
So while Microsoft has strategic vision, I posit that its vision is wrong. I do not have a suggestion for what Microsoft should do or I would be its CEO, but it seems its strategy is wrong. This does not mean that it will not be a powerful and profitable company for years, just that its energies are directed in the wrong place and no amount of research will cure this.
Because Debt Is Money [View article]
You are responding to two different people with opposing views..
With regards to the 'stimulus bill' if the govt spends $800B dollars regardless of how it is done they are still spending it. I will agree that creating demand to build things is more impactful than a tax cut which generates more disposable income, but 800 large is still 800 large. The low wage taxpayer will not save the tax cut but spend it. A rich tax payer may save it or spend it.
My point about the money multiplier with an economy with a more robust manufacturing sector means that the value of the multiplier is higher than in a service economy.
I think we are in general agreement on how an economy functions. However you are mixing me up with my friend here who does not agree.
Because Debt Is Money [View article]
@Pendragon
I am not mistaken that all service jobs are low wage. I am well aware that a McDonalds service counter person and a lawyer are both service center jobs.
I went to the trouble to illustrate how money multiplies with a significant manufacturing sector that does not hold true with service jobs.
Please explain to me how Keynesian has been proven wrong on its claims. The primary difference between monetarists and keynesians with regard to gdp growth is the weight of different variables in the same equation. Essentially monetarists believe govt crowds out investment while keynesians believe that one does not necessarily push out the other.
If you pay attention Reagan's economic policies while publicly espoused as monetarist had a large keynesian component to them. His policies are always held up as 'proof' that monetarism works and keynes does not.
Please provide some examples that disprove keynesian theories.
I have heard this argument before and it seems to me that those that hold ( at least publicly ) to monetarist policies over 'keynesian' make this argument. Essentially it is those who say government is bad until they want govt to step in ( like pumping $2 trillion) into the world bank centers for bailing them out of their gambles gone bad.
Your last paragraph means that you do not understand my explanation of the money multiplier. But that is ok