sleepy

Why Research in Motion Is a Takeover Target

MSFT buy RIMM? Yes please - we missed out on the Yahoo chance to suck the cash out and let MSFT fade away faster.

Sorry, but it's not about devices, or even OS's (although you need both). Remember CPM/86 or OS/2? Or even the old Mac OS. They all looked like winners at one time, but were beaten from behind by a poorer product. And all those early iPhone comparisons saying something else was better, faster, cheaper or had more features. But people bought iPhones anyway.

Everybody does mobile messaging well enough now. RIM should sell to the first offer, but it's probably too late already. RIM's fallback task is to hold on to enough revenue for 5-10 years while it finds a new place. But I doubt if the management has that creativity in them, as Apple didn't before SJ's return.

Apple May Find Itself at Risk in Legacy Core Business

The author is mindlessly regurgitating competitor propaganda.

How does this desirable "poised" state occupied by Google and Microsoft have any significance to Apple or its customers?

What exactly is "proprietary" about anything an Apple customer is tied to? Not video, audio, pictures, mail, calendar, address book. It's Microsoft that's proprietary and near universal, but Apple also takes the trouble to buy licenses and interoperate out of the box with Microsoft's proprietary Office, Exchange and and SMB. All built on an open source OS foundation.

Even the iPhone App store is open to all. But it does guarantee that the provenance of your software is traceable, and that the performance and battery life of your gadget is predictable. If you think Android is so open, how can it be that Android phones are even carrier locked at all? And wait till you see what you can and can't do with a Verizon Android phone.

These are all design decisions made by Apple, and they are proving to be the right ones.

Bing's Phenomenal New Visual Search

Kinda looks more like a portal than a search engine to me. Then there's the bandwidth needed for a responsive experience. Then there's the fact that you need to install Silverlight. Flash is already a blight on the browsing experience. Do we really want another proprietary blight?

Like Wolfram Alpha, it's impressive, but it doesn't remotely replace Google. And Microsoft is astroturfing again by hijacking and bending the word "search", just as they did with "windows", and "word". It's not search, it's a dog and pony show to draw you in to Bing and SIlverlight. Don't let them mess with your mind yet again.

Seems to have this writer fooled that it's search. It's not, even if it is pretty.

Buying Apple Today: Like Buying Microsoft in 1998?

One way I like to look at this is to consider the market cap of whole markets that Apple is in (PC's; cellphones; music and video players; music and video distribution; web services; retail; music, photo and video creation) and estimate the smallest market cap Apple might take from incumbents in each market. The answer gives a surprisingly large total, even without Apple being a dominant player in any market. (And that's before you consider retail banking as a possible market for Apple - give it a few moments thought. A hundred million credit cards registered could become a hundred million retail banking customers.)

Apple knows full well that the market is more powerful than itself (unlike Microsoft, although Microsoft may finally be learning). So Apple can't rush off into the distance with innovation; to move the whole market they have to keep their innovation bottled up and let the competition get close enough to keep up. Some read this as risk from competition and falling margins but it's simply Apple playing its unbeatable hand for maximum long term gain.

Microsoft's New Mobile OS Takes Cues from iPhone

Fremont Real Estate Realtor: MS didn't invent the two button mouse any more than Apple invented the mouse, but Mac OS has supported multi-button mice for many years. The single button was the result of user trials. Even today many users of Windows don't know what the second button is for, and don't use it. MacOS is explicitly default configured for such people, but the mouse that comes with Mac is multi-button capable, as is the trackpad on Macbooks, even though there aren't 2 physical buttons to confuse novices.

In short: Apple takes far, far more care over this sort of thing than Microsoft ever has, and invented practically nothing.

Three Reasons I Chose Microsoft over Apple for Home Media

Tying content distribution to physical media is obviously irrelevant for the future. Even broadcast TV and radio have only a small part to play in the future. Apple is carefully building towards the future; Microsoft is providing a broad solution for the end of the 20th century most of which will have to be discarded not so far in the future.

I'm much happier managing my content to follow Apple's vision.

Microsoft: A Bargain Hiding in Plain Sight

You're looking backwards.

1. where's the wide moat?
2. where's the growth?

Windows OS monopoly over; margins falling, unable to transition away from XP. Attempt to dominate browsers - now failing. Microsoft Office - increasingly irrelevant. Attempt to be the gateway for internet authentication/payment - failed; Attempt at traction in internet advertising - failed; attempt to control content distribution via DRM - failed; attempt to dominate mobile devices - failed. Xbox profitability - temporarily fudged with a $1B warranty provision write-off.

It's not clear MS's future is anything like as profitable as its past, yet shareholders, far from having anything to show for the glory years, have paid out $28 billion in negative retained earnings to date. In other words, Bill Gates and his friends printed themselves stock certificates and bought them back with $28B more than all the money Microsoft has earned since the beginning. In fact, at $20B profit per year, it would take shareholders seven years just to get their money back. Are you sure the dominant monopolist will still be dominant in seven years?

In a Recession, Who Still Needs Tech?

I'm not sure the writer actually knows what it's like to manage your affairs on a small budget. A smart phone is a key economic resource when you lose your job and/or home. Just two examples: rapid response is necessary to get items from the freecycle network (see wikipedia), and progressing job applications at no marginal cost by email. An iPod is a known one time cost that entertains you for almost nothing; so it's also justifiable in hard times, especially because you can always ebay it if things get tight. Can't do that with an evening out, or meals eaten at Macdonald's.

Consortium To Standardize Digital Rights Management, Take On Apple

Apple's Fairplay DRM is an optional service to content owners. Since it is proprietary, Apple can both make guarantees to content owners (if security is breached, Apple can force an update to every device wanting to load new Fairplay content), and offer consumers a fair deal (DRM'd content never dies; there is no "keep alive" callback to headquarters required, unlike other systems with guarantees).

The problem with a shared open standard is that once it's cracked, it can't be repaired, and content owners can't be compensated. Therefore it can't compete with Fairplay as an attractive DRM for content owners.

Apple does not in fact demand a monopoly on distribution; but only to distribute on its own terms.

The final solution some years hence may be that Fairplay is licensed broadly by means of Apple chips embedded in devices from all manufacturers.

The paradox for content owners is that no-one wants content until they are aware of it. An owner will pay to get his song on radio, yet wants paying for a consumer to hear it on demand. An industry wide "open" DRM is destined either to be cracked and bypassed (like DVD), or its protected content to be ignored and forgotten by consumers.

The industry needs to cut a long term deal to license Fairplay, in exchange for giving Apple distribution of its content.

Sandisk: Will Samsung Help or Will Intel Hurt?

"Apple, on the other hand, needs a constant string of innovations every year . . ." shows you have not understood Apple. This is a single minded, integrated and very ambitious 10-20 year plan, not a string of disjoint fashion-powered innovations. Keep watching; more stuff will be happening soon.