Camden

AT&T: The (Apple) Brand Destroyer

I agree with the above comments that this article is not worthy of S.A. While there are a few interesting bits of information on the whole I found it garbage. I think the author may a bit off his rocker.

Should the FCC Force Apple to Stock Competitive Products in Its Own Store?

I think his points make fine sense with regard to ATT. Also, there is NO question of monopolistic power here. You say yourself that ATT is one of FOUR companies that share 90% of the U.S. market. That certainly sounds like strong compition to me. What's good for consumers in the short run isn't necessarily good for the market or consumers in the long run. Take away the carriers profits and we'll watch the networks deteriorate. ATT is already getting grief for the quality of it's network service (it can't keep up with booming data traffic).

I certainly agree with the concept that a service provider should be able to provide the service it desires to provide as long as there is a public good. The FCC should be able to control the use of the public spectrum (to prevent harm to the public) but not to the point of dictating what content each and every provider must provide.


On Aug 02 12:05 PM Murphy Mac wrote:

> Some of your points make sense with regard to Apple, but not with
> regard to AT&T. AT&T is one of four carriers who control
> approximately 90% of the U.S. market.
>
> A Google Voice app is mostly a threat to AT&T's SMS business,
> as it allows sending and receiving of free SMS messages. Goodbye
> twenty dollars a month for unlimited texting. Indirectly, Google
> Voice as a whole is a threat as people can use their landlines for
> free long distance instead of chewing up cellular minutes.
>
> With that in mind, I'm happy to see the FCC poke a stick at this.
> I doubt anything will come of it. But maybe someone besides Senator
> Herb Kohl will question why the carriers have established twenty
> cents as the cost of an SMS message when industry experts claim the
> actual cost is negligible. That price points to collusion by the
> monopoly carriers.
>
> AT&T might rethink their whole stance: Google Voice could make
> using voice services bearable again, a goal the carriers have not
> lifted a finger to achieve. Voice minutes are hugely profitable,
> especially when the plans require purchasing more minutes than someone
> wants to use. I suspect Google Voice will lead to me using voice
> minutes more often. It would be interesting to know what AT&T
> thinks of that possibility.

10 Reasons Not to Buy Apple

I agree with Zobby that this is "One of the dumbest articles on Apple ever." Each of the ten reasons is obviously flawed. In fact, a very strong argument could be made by using the same issues as reasons to BUY Apple. The logic used in this article is "bass ackwards".

Week in Review, Part I: Global Economics, International and U.S. Equity Markets Overview

Thanks for posting. While your comments on black-box trading were somewhat insightful, they also seemed a bit naive. So what if stocks in certain sectors go up and then down day to day! Should one buy because they move one way or the other on a given day? Of course not. Thousands of stocks are now 25% or more above their lows. Many are up 50% or more. If one is worried about black-box trading and not willing to look beyond the daily meandering of the sectors then one is not going to see the tremendous opportunities in front of them.

I hope you post those charts again in the future. It's good to get a big-picture look at what is going on. Looking at the weekly S&P it is clear the market still has A LOT of upside before getting anywhere close to a even 50% retracement of the 2008 crash. Also interesting is the recent out-performance of the Russell 2000 stocks. That move seems to be rolling over.

Cramer's Mad Money - Hey Apple: Chips Are Not a Commodity (4/30/09)

Re: "This will turn out to be a big deal."

I would add "... for Apple."

Of course how big a deal it becomes depends on Apple's ability to produce "more capable" chips in a timely, cost efficient manner.

Apple continues to up the ante for the competition. That bodes well for Apple and it's shareholders.


On May 01 09:46 AM Timeline Strategy Consulting wrote:

> Consider the context in which Apple operates. If they lack the capacity
> to design and fabricate their own chips, then they either: (1) subject
> themselves to whims of market pricing, long lead times, process runs
> of millions and millions of units; or (2) partner with, and pre-pay,
> a supplier who will dedicate capacity to Apple's specific needs.
>
>
> Either way, they are effectively held hostage by chipmaking capacity,
> which is theoretically able to be purchased by any company. In that
> sense it is a commodity.
>
> Apple is thinking many years ahead with this move. The basis of their
> strategy is that the separation between semiconductor and device
> manufacturers hurts product development cycles, as the device manufacturers
> are subject to the above dynamics. They will be able to design, produce,
> and test chips with extremely fast turnaround, and greatly speed
> the development cycle.
>
> This will turn out to be a big deal.

AT&T Complains About Google, Apple Coopetition

My guess is Verizon will soon be the second carrier to offer the iPhone. The opportunity for Apple is very large. Apple has AT&T locked in due to all the current users that AT&T needs to keep. Verizon offers a whole new batch of users and much better coverage (and AT&T weakness).

Yahoo's Board Is Asleep at the Wheel

Give me a beak! You know what best for Yahoo better the the B.O.D. ? Right!

You asked the appropriate question: "What has taken them so long?" The point is, you DON'T KNOW all that the Board has to consider. It is the Board's responsibility to consider all possible actions to gain maximum shareholder value – and you do not know what options are in front of them.

It's one thing to criticize the Board for past poor company performance, it's another to criticize them for their current deliberation of options concerning the Microsoft bid without having knowledge of recent discussions and the possibilities those discussions presented.

Apple, Google: Avoiding the Overvaluation Trap

1. Nowhere in the quoted text does it say these stocks should be owned "at any price".

2. Ben Graham would likely have NEVER owned either GOOGLE or APPLE, which in my way of thinking makes your argument an apples-to-oranges comparison.

3. Tommo's comment is right on target.

Emotion: The Enemy of Every Investor

Todd, it seems you just don't get it. I think you may need to take some introductory business courses. From your recent articles about Apple's iPhone one gets the impression that you are either ignorant of business concepts or simply putting forth faulty arguments with the intention of inciting responses from outraged readers. For a "serious" financial blogger to write "The original iPods were only moderately successful until they could be purchased for under $200 and then $100" is absurd. The original iPod was perhaps the most "game-changing", wildly successful consumer technology product introduced in the past 20 years. The original iPod was never expected to be the music player for "the masses" – those were "on the drawing board" at the time of the original iPod introduction. The first iPod was meant designed to capture the attention of the public and harvest the "low hanging fruit" from consumers willing to pay top dollar for the best digital music player in the world. With the introduction of the iPhone next month Apple will be repeating that method of marketing a new consumer product line. For you to consider the iPhone "a flop" if it does not become "a hit with the masses" in it's first year is faulty business logic and in my opinion, shows a lack effort on your part as a financial blogger.