This is not specifically directed at you, but this logic drives me crazy. Price per share has little to do with anything.
Using your logic, Google is significantly overvalued at $400 per share. There must be lots of money to be made by shorting this stock. Berkshire Hathaway's (brk-a) current share price is around $88,000. Quick everybody short Berkshire, you'll be rich as soon as all the dummies who own brk-a stock realize what a blunder they've made.
One key to investing is to look at value (or potential value.) Looking at price alone and comparing it to other companies does yourself and others a considerable disservice.
I believe that Google is overvalued (as you do) and in this case that also translates to over priced. Berkshire on the other hand has extremely high priced, though I believe that they are fair to undervalued.
When you buy stock, while the physical transaction maybe be X dollars for X shares of stock, what you are actually buying is a percentage of ownership. If you know of a company that you believe to be a winner, the idea is to buy as much ownership in that company at the cheapest price. Keep in mind though, a low price does not equal a cheap price.
Example: Microsoft is cheap - Google is expensive - Berkshire is off the charts (in comparison to each other)
(Disclaimer: my numbers may/will be slightly wrong, as may be my methods, but the overall idea is correct)
Owning 1 share of Microsoft translates into owning 1/10,000,000,000 of a percent
Owning 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway translates into owning 1/1,500,000 of a percent
Owning 1 share of Google translates to owning 1/300,000,000 of a percent
If Google where to split it's stock enough times to equal that of Microsoft, one share of Google would cost about $12 per share. Would Google still be to expensive at $12 per share? Like everything else, it depends.
In comparison to Berkshire Hathaway Google stock would cost about $80,000 per share.
The point is, price means nothing when used out of context. Please don't do it.
"I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should."
Where is this 3-4% number coming from, I keep seeing people quote it?
Please correct me if/where I am wrong. Disney is a $50 billion dollar company which traded $7.4 billion worth of stock for ownership of Pixar. 7.4 is around 14% (closer to 15 actually.) Steve, owning half of of Pixar, walks away with about 7% ownership of Disney, not 3-4%.
Disney offered $7.4 Billion in stock. I may be misunderstanding something, but 7.4 billion is around 14% of Disney's value, Steve Job's owning half of Pixar translates into about 7% ownership of Disney. (not 3.5%)
" keep hearing this, but the details strike me as an entirely different story...
Disney "bought" Pixar for stock. Steve Jobs owned Pixar. Steve Jobs now owns more Disney stock than anyone else. This would seem to mean that Steve Jobs now "owns" Disney, no?
I mean, the rest of the stockholders could outvote him collectively, but in general Jobs now more-or-less controls the future of Disney.
So, considering that, would it sound more accurate to say "Apple has Borgified both Disney and Pixar"?"
Regarding ownership and control. Steve Jobs owned 51% of Pixar, which meant he had complete control of the company, though he didn't own it out right. Now that he has sold Pixar he has given up control. Pixar sold to Disney for 7.4 billion in stock, after the math Steve Jobs now (or will soon) owns right around 7% of Disney. Steve owning 7% makes him the single largest shareholder, but it in no way puts him in control of Disney, the way he was at Pixar. The people in control of Disney are the executives and the board of directors (often the same people.) Steve also happened to buy his way on to the board of directors. Steve has done as good a job as one can expect, his vote counts more than any other single groups, and he's in a position to directly argue for are against ideas to the board. Bottom line, Steve can and will be a powerfull force within Disney, but he is no way the owner, or controller of Disney.
That all said, I believe Disney will do just about everything Jobs tells them.
I think it would be more appropriate to say that Steve has Borgified both Apple and Disney. (using Next and Pixar respectively)
HAHA! No, you totally made my day. Mixing the inevitable truth with all the classic "wrong things" to say about Apple related stuff. Brilliant work. If I had mod points I would mod you up.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor
Or maybe I completely read your intent incorrectly. Maybe you're trying to be a troll, or maybe you're just stupid. Please don't correct me if I wrong. I prefer to think that your are both witty and insightful.
If it makes any difference, it does seem as though the price has come down. My memory maybe faulty since it was years ago, but I believe that $2999 was the price of the PowerBook 667 when it was announced. Apple's price points typically stay the same even as the products get better. This is almost always the case, unless they do across the board price cuts like they've done with their monitors.
May not be inexpensive enough for you, but $2499 is significantly less $2999.
Well, I certainly feel a little sheepish as I didn't RTFA. But I just read the one over at wired.com.
"Viiv owners will be able to put their PCs in a standby state with the press of a button and reawaken it instantly the same way."
Didn't Apple just purchase or sign agreements to purchase an insane amount Flash memory? So much that it seemed obvious that it was going to be used for something other than iPods. And wasn't the speculation that it would be used for instant or virtually instant on PC's?
Beyond that though, my previous comment about a possible Apple/Intel/Tivo article now seems totally rediculous. From the article, I speculate that Tivo got word of what Apple and Intel were working on and they wanted to play in their sandbox. Like I mentioned previously, I believe Tivo is doomed unless they do something fairly big.
Are you possibly suggesting a Tivo/Intel/Apple partnership? Or just that Intel may be hedging their bets by working with both Apple and Tivo... Or something altogether different.
I think a Tivo/Intel/Apple partnership plausible, though unlikely. Apple doesn't gain much by partnering with Tivo, in fact I think Apple loses by partnering with Tivo.
Intel of course wins either way, both companies still need chips etc...
Tivo is obviously in trouble, might they be trying to pretty themselves up for a buyout from Apple? Several years ago, just as the iPod/iTunes was taking off, I told a friend of mine that Apple's next move would be to buy Tivo... That it made sense. He agreed with me, and that was about the end of it. So far, I've obviously been wrong but I still think it could possibly be a good idea and possibly still happen.
Tivo has the strongest brand in the DVR market right now, I don't think there is any question about that. Their boxes for the most part do exactly what they are supposed to and they do it well. Problem is anybody can create a similar, comparable device. In this respect Tivo is Apple or Beta even. A superior product getting beaten down by a better marketed/positioned/priced inferior product. So Tivo's core business is clearly threatened by rip-off competitors. They have to move into a different market or die. Yes, as much as I like Tivo, they will die without doing something major.
Apple could acquire Tivo, and I think it might not be that bad of a deal. Though again I'm not sure what Apple would gain. Tivo would certainly gain respect and clout in eyes of media distributors/producers. Like iTunes has because of A. it's a great product (even if "you" don't care for it) and B. Steven Jobs/Pixar. For Apple, they'd gain instant living room credibility... Though from the looks of things (iStuff, you will buy it and you will like it) Apple doesn't need that credibility. Maybe I'm taking a look at it from the wrong angle. Apple doesn't need Tivo, but Apple might need to keep Tivo away from a competitor.
You are absolutely right, a better option is required. Let me use myself as an example. I have cable internet, cable TV (not by choice - comes with internet,) DirecTV + a couple of premium packages, and Netflix. I've got no emotional ties to where I get any of my content/service, just as long as it fullfills my needs and wants. For the most part all of my needs are being met but not my wants.
What I want is instant gratification, on-demand everything. I believe there are a lot of people trying to give me what I want. Below is a list of what I want in no particular order.
1. Single billing point - 1 content provider 2. The option to choose which format I want (SD or HD.) 3. The ability to choose between subscription and ppv models 4. The ability to choose from a library of all previously created content. 5. Ability to access the same/additional content creators that I currently have access to. 6. The ability to watch the content immediately after selecting it. 7. DVR type functions - fast foward, pause, etc...
That's it, that's the whole pie.
There isn't a single provider that currently offers all of this today. Many companies have a piece or large chunk of the pie, but nobody is offering the whole thing yet.
Notice that I didn't say "no commercials?" I'm ok with commericals, as long as I can fast forward through them if I choose to.
To give an example of how this would work:
I've have a:
$20/per month subscription to "movies" $5/per month sub to NBC - with commercials $5/per month sub to ABC - with commercials $5/per month sub to CBS - with commercials $5/per month sub to FOX - with commercials $10/per month sub to Comedy Central - with commercials $15/per month sub to HBO w/out commercials $10/per month sub to Discovery channels - w/out commercials $10/per month sub to History channels - w/out commercials $10/per month in $1.99 charges for one off events
Total it up = $95/per month For fun lets just bump it up to $100 a month.
That about what I pay now for DirecTV and Netflix together. The interesting thing is under my "plan" I get less varied content than what I currently get... But I get more of what I want when I want it. More depth, less variety.
I think Apple is the only company currently in a position to offer such a thing or really anything much closer than what's currently available. Apple's current attempt is pretty weak, but it's a start. If they release a DVR type device with a remote that plugs into the TV, all they'd really have to do is increase the amount of content available and they'd be ready to go . (along with different billing options, and all the back end accounting stuff.)
I suppose I could say $15 a month for a subscription to Napster (or even iTunes Music if it existed) no thanks. But $100 a month for a subscription to all the video content I can eat when I want to eat it... Uh, yes please.
I'm with you man. Today's BIG annoucement is leans heavily on the gimmicky side. Still think that video iPod is a lame idea, though it's nice it doesn't raise the price of the iPod.
320x240 basically make the video useless for anything but iPod use. Yeah, it's neat... but a total gimmick.
I see people on here saying that $1.99 is a good price. I say bullshit, that price sucks. I consider a 3 minute song much more valuable than a 60ish minute long network tv show. I'll watch the show MAYBE twice, but I'll listen to the song over and over throughout the course of my life. I'd be happy to pay $.50 for a tv show, at $1.00 I'd be choosy, and at $1.99 I'd have to be damn desperate. And that's if the content was 720p... This is lame 320x240 craptasticness. Seriously, would you pay $10 a month for ABC on cable, or $10 for 5 ABC tv shows? I wouldn't... Though I do pay $10 a month for HBO, but at least I get to see some boobs once in a while.
I'm normally a Apple supporter, I like their products. But I just can't get behind this gimmick. As much as I don't like this idea I do view this as small stepping stone towards an Apple branded DVR and downloadable HD movies.
Obviously I'm not sure what Apple's going to announce but I don't think it's going to be a video iPod. Here's a thought. I think Apple (as I've said before in a previous post/story)is going to introduce a Tivo like devices that hooks into the network and allows you to rent/download movies. (something that you might envision if/when tivo and netflix get rolling together)
My suspicions are even stronger now that this "invite" has gone out. I think it's fairly obvious that a movie download service is a natural fit/extension for Apple given the success of ITMS. Yesterday or the day before I read a couple of articles where some big movie execs (or mpaa or somebody) were saying that they were going to enter the movie download market before the end of the year.
The invitation itself does leave a couple of clues (I think.) The first hint is "one more thing..." Steve's opening line before announcing his big plan. To me that means that Apple's going to announce something big. Not: We've said that video for the iPod is stupid, but "Oh yeah, one more thing... It's a video iPod! TAH DAH!!!! it's the greatest thing ever!" Of coarse, Steve Job's could invoke his RSF and make my spoof a reality rather than a silly musing.
The next clue is the curtains in the invitation. To me those look like the old movie theater curtains they used to use (and maybe still use.) Dunno, but I can't imagine that they would be using theater curtains because somebody in the art department thought it would make a nifty background for "one more thing." But maybe.
Lastly, I don't believe that refreshed computers (desktops or laptops) would be enough of a reason to setup an invitation only press event. Well it could be G5 powerbooks, but I doubt that.
So my offical guess is a Apple branded DVR that hooks into a Apple movie service similar to ITMS.
Obviously I'm not sure what Apple's going to announce but I don't think it's going to be a video iPod. Here's a thought. I think Apple (as I've said before in a previous post/story)is going to introduce a Tivo like devices that hooks into the network and allows you to rent/download movies. (something that you might envision if/when tivo and netflix get rolling together)
My suspicions are even stronger now that this "invite" has gone out. I think it's fairly obvious that a movie download service is a natural fit/extension for Apple given the success of ITMS. Yesterday or the day before I read a couple of articles where some big movie execs (or mpaa or somebody) were saying that they were going to enter the movie download market before the end of the year.
The invitation itself does leave a couple of clues (I think.) The first hint is "one more thing..." Steve's opening line before announcing his big plan. To me that means that Apple's going to announce something big. Not: We've said that video for the iPod is stupid, but "Oh yeah, one more thing... It's a video iPod! TAH DAH!!!! it's the greatest thing ever!" Of coarse, Steve Job's could invoke his RSF and make my claim a reality rather than a silly musing.
The next clue is the curtains in the invitation. To me those look like the old movie theater curtains they used to use (and maybe still use.) Dunno, but I can't imagine that they would be using theater curtains because somebody in the art department thought it would make a nifty background for "one more thing." But maybe.
Lastly, I don't believe that refreshed computers (desktops or laptops) would be enough of a reason to setup an invitation only press event. Well it could be G5 powerbooks, but I doubt that.
So my offical guess is a Apple branded DVR that hooks into a Apple movie service similar to ITMS.
All is not lost. In fact, you situation is much better than you think. In regards to your HD setup I envy you and wish I had it. (I recently moved from Phoenix to a basically dark area.) In fact I percieve that the OtA HD broadcasts are of better quality than what DTV broadcasts. (I attribute this to the mpeg2 encoding DTV does to their video)
Phoenix metro broadcasts (iirc) everything major network in HD OtA (over the air), free.
So, being the super fan that you are I will assume that you have the DirecTivo. If that's the case you're golden. Simply buy a cheapie antenna from radio shack or bestbuy ($30-$40) plug it in (to the tivo box) and tell Tivo you have it. It'll add the channels right in-line with your regular DTV channels. It's a really slick set up.
If you don't have DirecTivo, I'm not sure exactly what you can do (but it can be done you'll just need to do some research), but you probably needs to start buy purchasing an OtA HD decoder. I recommend forgetting about all the hassles and just buying a DirecTivo. Though it's my understanding that DTV will be obsoleting the DirecTivo (which does mpeg2 HD) in favor of a unit that does H.264 HD. So take your tech chances there... I did.
When you get the antenna all you need to do is point it towards South Mountain (that's where all the networks broadcast from.) If you have an attic simply put the antenna in there, you can lay it down on the flooring if you like. (thats what I did, yeah it was ugly, but who goes into the attic/crawlspace?)
I don't know what kind of HOA rules you have to deal with or anything, but there are tons of different ways for you to solve your problem.
I'm not sure how to take your comment. Given the attitude I often see here on Slashdot regarding companies and their desire/need to make money, I'm going to assume you are in the camp of not understanding why making a profit isn't "enough" for shareholders.
The reason that simply making a profit isn't enough is because shareholders buy their shares at a multiple of what the company is actually worth based on their current or potential profit. Often times, as is the case with Ebay, that multiple is really high. Ebay's current share price is currently trading at roughly 57 times earning.
People will buy ebay shares at this price because they speculate that eBay will be able to grow it's earnings a lot in a relatively short period of time.
What it all boils down to is risk/reward. I consider Ebay to be very low risk company, in regards to staying in business. However at their current multiple I believe they are a very high risk company for investing. So if you are going to purchase shares in Ebay, it's a prerequisite that you are going to expect/demand that the company at the very least "try" to grow it's earnings.
My personal opinion is that Ebay buying Paypal was great for Ebay and for Paypal. But Ebay buying Skype makes no sense to me. Hell, I see more opportunities with AOL/TW than I do here... And we all know how well that worked out.
It's an interesting case though. I generally like both companies, and in my household both Skype and Ebay are used on a weekly basis, if not daily. However I don't like this deal, there are a couple of negative issues that this deal presents.
Issue 1: "Buy what you know" It's a good rule of thumb, not a law. I know ebay, I know paypal, I know skype, I know ebay-paypal, but I don't know ebay-paypal-skype. The deal doesn't make sense. But hey what do I know, I'm dumb. The management team at ebay must be much smarter than me, especially at running their own business. Not that I'm suggesting this, but the top management at Enron were "The Smartest Guys In The Room" too.
Of course, I believe that ebay's management is probably pretty good. Well, no I don't, but I don't have any justifications for thinking they are not all that great until this skype deal appeared. In reality, I've always felt that Ebay's management was probably mediocre and was blessed by having a dominant position in a market that was very difficult to screw up. Hence making them look like rock stars to investors. The purchase of Paypal, was a no brainer (even mediocre management could see that.) But the Skype deal just doesn't make sense. Which leads to issue 2.
Issue 2: What's the purchase of a seemingly completely unrelated company really say about Ebay? To me this is a dark cloud. What I think it says is Ebay doesn't think it can grow it's earnings fast enough to placate it's shareholders by doing what it's currently doing. It says to me that Ebay doesn't have a clue what it should do with it's current cash pile. So they went looking for an opportunity. And the best they could come up with is Skype? Again, from where I stand it's a completely unrelated business, and it's a stretch to link their business's in anyway. So, by Ebay throwing so much money at Skype see several possibilities. Ebay's management is not mediocre, but complete morons. Ebay is totally desperate to find a new source of revenue and is willing to throw as much cash as it takes "fix" it's problems. Or management is actually made up of a bunch of business rock stars and have found an opportunity that makes 2-3 billion dollars seem like chump change.
I vote that management are desperate morons. But like I said earlier "What do I know, I'm dumb."
As idiotic as that may sound, that's the truth of the matter. You can abstract something as much as you want but if you want to know what the important bits are you have to dig through the abstraction.
For example birth and life are simply precursors to death. What does that tell anybody? Nothing new, that's for sure. (unless somebody forgot to tell you you weren't immortal.)
The abstract of the above poster was that spaceflight can be deadly. (surprised? doubt it)The more specific is that spaceflight itself, when involving an American, so far has not been deadly. Just the launch and re-entry parts.
So if you wanted to witness Nasa having some dramatic problems, you'd pay special attention to the launch and re-entry. Or if you were a Nasa engineer/saftey specialist/whatever again you pay special attention to the most common problem areas. Limited resources require understanding the specifics, not only grasping the abstract.
"For another, kids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation."
Not to discredit what you're saying but care to back that up with some facts and statistics to illustrate your point?
It's seems that every generation thinks that the upcoming generation is in a worse state than their generation. "You know, back in my day we had to walk to school up hill both ways, in the snow etc etc..."
I may not personally care for the taste's of the up and coming generation (if G4/M TV are any indication.) But it doesn't necessarily mean that the kids aren't "all right."
Lastly, a few bad Apples, Columbine, etc. May be bitter but they certainly don't reflect everyday normal behavior for the vast majority of the population. I'm referring to kids going on slaughtering rampages... Not teasing, clicks, bullies, etc Those have always been around.
There were 2 different Voltron's, the first (lions) and the second (spaceships.)
Basically think an animated version of Power Rangers. (well before the time of the power rangers.)
5 people have robot lions, they use them like cars/tanks... When the fighting against the main baddie of the week get tough, the 5 lions "transform" into a huge humanoid robot. 4 lions make the arms and legs and teh leader lion makes the torso and head.
Microsoft and Apple are monopolies. But they are different kinds, illegal and legal.
Apple, from the beggining, is a monopoly by design. They make the computer and the OS. (not including the brief period where Apple allowed 3rd parties to make mac's)
MS, as much as we may hate to admit it, became a monopoly by choice. Business's and consumers chose MS. Along the way to monopoly'hood MS used it's influence to stifle competition. When you are not a monopoly you can get away with monopolistic practices. So MS used all the dirty tricks (which weren't dirty when they were smaller) to get where they are today.
Now MS, the monopoly, is no longer a monopoly of choice, they are a monopoly of because of the lack of choice. Sure you could always argue that there is choice. You could buy a Mac, our build your own box and install linux instead of using Windows. That's all great to say but the bottom line is that it's just to expensive for that to be a viable choice. It's not just about the hardware but all the custom software and process's that will only work in an MS environment. Transitioning from MS takes a lot of time and money, you can do it, but many factors are working against you.
But being a monopoly even the kind that is MS, is not illegal. What's illegal using using your monopoly position to stifle competition in markets which you do not compete in directly. Or to use your position to influence companies that are not in your market to prvent other from entering your market. (think netscape and bundeling) For example, Why do people buy Dell's over Gateway's? Price and service. (other factors as well, but the vast majority of the time it boils down to price and service.) So Dell wants to sell Linux boxes, MS says "no way, if you do we will raise the price you pay for Windows $100 and lower the price Gateway pays by $100."
This would kill Dell. They would be at a total competitive dis-advantage and I doubt they would survive it without giving in to MS's demands. So, the easy solution? Don't sell linux... Or sell linux, but still pay MS for the copy of Windows per box. In fact the deal might be, make the exact same linux box more expensive than the windows box.
Apple may be a monopoly, but they are a monopoly of their nitch. There are plenty of alternatives, just no alternatives if you want a Mac. Guess what? That's how it is and that's ok. Lot's of alternatives to BMW, but none if you want the BMW.
But in a semi-related note, if Apple can maintain and grow it's position in the digital music market, expect to see the record labels start suing Apple for unfair monopolistic practices. (this is years down the road, when downloadable music is the norm, and hard copies are the exception.)
DirectTV's HD Tivo's don't "require" a land line either. But, you need to use the land line if you want to purchase PPV type stuff.
I've never plugged my unit into the land line, though I'm about to because of the annoying message I get each day telling me I haven't called in several hundred days.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not specifically directed at you, but this logic drives me crazy. Price per share has little to do with anything.
Using your logic, Google is significantly overvalued at $400 per share. There must be lots of money to be made by shorting this stock. Berkshire Hathaway's (brk-a) current share price is around $88,000. Quick everybody short Berkshire, you'll be rich as soon as all the dummies who own brk-a stock realize what a blunder they've made.
One key to investing is to look at value (or potential value.) Looking at price alone and comparing it to other companies does yourself and others a considerable disservice.
I believe that Google is overvalued (as you do) and in this case that also translates to over priced. Berkshire on the other hand has extremely high priced, though I believe that they are fair to undervalued.
When you buy stock, while the physical transaction maybe be X dollars for X shares of stock, what you are actually buying is a percentage of ownership. If you know of a company that you believe to be a winner, the idea is to buy as much ownership in that company at the cheapest price. Keep in mind though, a low price does not equal a cheap price.
Example: Microsoft is cheap - Google is expensive - Berkshire is off the charts (in comparison to each other)
(Disclaimer: my numbers may/will be slightly wrong, as may be my methods, but the overall idea is correct)
Owning 1 share of Microsoft translates into owning 1/10,000,000,000 of a percent
Owning 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway translates into owning 1/1,500,000 of a percent
Owning 1 share of Google translates to owning 1/300,000,000 of a percent
If Google where to split it's stock enough times to equal that of Microsoft, one share of Google would cost about $12 per share. Would Google still be to expensive at $12 per share? Like everything else, it depends.
In comparison to Berkshire Hathaway Google stock would cost about $80,000 per share.
The point is, price means nothing when used out of context. Please don't do it.
"I would hire a private investigator and a lawyer. Also, I don't see how someone could kidnap my child if I was a good parent and actually parented the child at all times, as a parent should."
You just lost all credibility.
Where is this 3-4% number coming from, I keep seeing people quote it?
Please correct me if/where I am wrong. Disney is a $50 billion dollar company which traded $7.4 billion worth of stock for ownership of Pixar. 7.4 is around 14% (closer to 15 actually.) Steve, owning half of of Pixar, walks away with about 7% ownership of Disney, not 3-4%.
Disney offered $7.4 Billion in stock. I may be misunderstanding something, but 7.4 billion is around 14% of Disney's value, Steve Job's owning half of Pixar translates into about 7% ownership of Disney. (not 3.5%)
" keep hearing this, but the details strike me as an entirely different story...
Disney "bought" Pixar for stock. Steve Jobs owned Pixar. Steve Jobs now owns more Disney stock than anyone else. This would seem to mean that Steve Jobs now "owns" Disney, no?
I mean, the rest of the stockholders could outvote him collectively, but in general Jobs now more-or-less controls the future of Disney.
So, considering that, would it sound more accurate to say "Apple has Borgified both Disney and Pixar"?"
Regarding ownership and control. Steve Jobs owned 51% of Pixar, which meant he had complete control of the company, though he didn't own it out right. Now that he has sold Pixar he has given up control. Pixar sold to Disney for 7.4 billion in stock, after the math Steve Jobs now (or will soon) owns right around 7% of Disney. Steve owning 7% makes him the single largest shareholder, but it in no way puts him in control of Disney, the way he was at Pixar. The people in control of Disney are the executives and the board of directors (often the same people.) Steve also happened to buy his way on to the board of directors. Steve has done as good a job as one can expect, his vote counts more than any other single groups, and he's in a position to directly argue for are against ideas to the board. Bottom line, Steve can and will be a powerfull force within Disney, but he is no way the owner, or controller of Disney.
That all said, I believe Disney will do just about everything Jobs tells them.
I think it would be more appropriate to say that Steve has Borgified both Apple and Disney. (using Next and Pixar respectively)
HAHA! No, you totally made my day. Mixing the inevitable truth with all the classic "wrong things" to say about Apple related stuff. Brilliant work. If I had mod points I would mod you up.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Hanlon's Razor
Or maybe I completely read your intent incorrectly. Maybe you're trying to be a troll, or maybe you're just stupid. Please don't correct me if I wrong. I prefer to think that your are both witty and insightful.
If it makes any difference, it does seem as though the price has come down. My memory maybe faulty since it was years ago, but I believe that $2999 was the price of the PowerBook 667 when it was announced. Apple's price points typically stay the same even as the products get better. This is almost always the case, unless they do across the board price cuts like they've done with their monitors.
May not be inexpensive enough for you, but $2499 is significantly less $2999.
Every thought of AppleBC? Maybe this could be the result of another realationship, Disnar.
Well, I certainly feel a little sheepish as I didn't RTFA. But I just read the one over at wired.com.
"Viiv owners will be able to put their PCs in a standby state with the press of a button and reawaken it instantly the same way."
Didn't Apple just purchase or sign agreements to purchase an insane amount Flash memory? So much that it seemed obvious that it was going to be used for something other than iPods. And wasn't the speculation that it would be used for instant or virtually instant on PC's?
Beyond that though, my previous comment about a possible Apple/Intel/Tivo article now seems totally rediculous. From the article, I speculate that Tivo got word of what Apple and Intel were working on and they wanted to play in their sandbox. Like I mentioned previously, I believe Tivo is doomed unless they do something fairly big.
Are you possibly suggesting a Tivo/Intel/Apple partnership? Or just that Intel may be hedging their bets by working with both Apple and Tivo... Or something altogether different.
I think a Tivo/Intel/Apple partnership plausible, though unlikely. Apple doesn't gain much by partnering with Tivo, in fact I think Apple loses by partnering with Tivo.
Intel of course wins either way, both companies still need chips etc...
Tivo is obviously in trouble, might they be trying to pretty themselves up for a buyout from Apple? Several years ago, just as the iPod/iTunes was taking off, I told a friend of mine that Apple's next move would be to buy Tivo... That it made sense. He agreed with me, and that was about the end of it. So far, I've obviously been wrong but I still think it could possibly be a good idea and possibly still happen.
Tivo has the strongest brand in the DVR market right now, I don't think there is any question about that. Their boxes for the most part do exactly what they are supposed to and they do it well. Problem is anybody can create a similar, comparable device. In this respect Tivo is Apple or Beta even. A superior product getting beaten down by a better marketed/positioned/priced inferior product. So Tivo's core business is clearly threatened by rip-off competitors. They have to move into a different market or die. Yes, as much as I like Tivo, they will die without doing something major.
Apple could acquire Tivo, and I think it might not be that bad of a deal. Though again I'm not sure what Apple would gain. Tivo would certainly gain respect and clout in eyes of media distributors/producers. Like iTunes has because of A. it's a great product (even if "you" don't care for it) and B. Steven Jobs/Pixar. For Apple, they'd gain instant living room credibility... Though from the looks of things (iStuff, you will buy it and you will like it) Apple doesn't need that credibility. Maybe I'm taking a look at it from the wrong angle. Apple doesn't need Tivo, but Apple might need to keep Tivo away from a competitor.
Regardless, fun times ahead.
You are absolutely right, a better option is required. Let me use myself as an example. I have cable internet, cable TV (not by choice - comes with internet,) DirecTV + a couple of premium packages, and Netflix. I've got no emotional ties to where I get any of my content/service, just as long as it fullfills my needs and wants. For the most part all of my needs are being met but not my wants.
What I want is instant gratification, on-demand everything. I believe there are a lot of people trying to give me what I want. Below is a list of what I want in no particular order.
1. Single billing point - 1 content provider
2. The option to choose which format I want (SD or HD.)
3. The ability to choose between subscription and ppv models
4. The ability to choose from a library of all previously created content.
5. Ability to access the same/additional content creators that I currently have access to.
6. The ability to watch the content immediately after selecting it.
7. DVR type functions - fast foward, pause, etc...
That's it, that's the whole pie.
There isn't a single provider that currently offers all of this today. Many companies have a piece or large chunk of the pie, but nobody is offering the whole thing yet.
Notice that I didn't say "no commercials?" I'm ok with commericals, as long as I can fast forward through them if I choose to.
To give an example of how this would work:
I've have a:
$20/per month subscription to "movies"
$5/per month sub to NBC - with commercials
$5/per month sub to ABC - with commercials
$5/per month sub to CBS - with commercials
$5/per month sub to FOX - with commercials
$10/per month sub to Comedy Central - with commercials
$15/per month sub to HBO w/out commercials
$10/per month sub to Discovery channels - w/out commercials
$10/per month sub to History channels - w/out commercials
$10/per month in $1.99 charges for one off events
Total it up = $95/per month For fun lets just bump it up to $100 a month.
That about what I pay now for DirecTV and Netflix together. The interesting thing is under my "plan" I get less varied content than what I currently get... But I get more of what I want when I want it. More depth, less variety.
I think Apple is the only company currently in a position to offer such a thing or really anything much closer than what's currently available. Apple's current attempt is pretty weak, but it's a start. If they release a DVR type device with a remote that plugs into the TV, all they'd really have to do is increase the amount of content available and they'd be ready to go . (along with different billing options, and all the back end accounting stuff.)
I suppose I could say $15 a month for a subscription to Napster (or even iTunes Music if it existed) no thanks. But $100 a month for a subscription to all the video content I can eat when I want to eat it... Uh, yes please.
My mistake.
No idea how I could've possible thought you were a virgin.
Hrm. Intersting definition of quadruple anal penetration. Somehow I suspect you're still a virgin.
I'm with you man. Today's BIG annoucement is leans heavily on the gimmicky side. Still think that video iPod is a lame idea, though it's nice it doesn't raise the price of the iPod.
320x240 basically make the video useless for anything but iPod use. Yeah, it's neat... but a total gimmick.
I see people on here saying that $1.99 is a good price. I say bullshit, that price sucks. I consider a 3 minute song much more valuable than a 60ish minute long network tv show. I'll watch the show MAYBE twice, but I'll listen to the song over and over throughout the course of my life. I'd be happy to pay $.50 for a tv show, at $1.00 I'd be choosy, and at $1.99 I'd have to be damn desperate. And that's if the content was 720p... This is lame 320x240 craptasticness. Seriously, would you pay $10 a month for ABC on cable, or $10 for 5 ABC tv shows? I wouldn't... Though I do pay $10 a month for HBO, but at least I get to see some boobs once in a while.
I'm normally a Apple supporter, I like their products. But I just can't get behind this gimmick. As much as I don't like this idea I do view this as small stepping stone towards an Apple branded DVR and downloadable HD movies.
Obviously I'm not sure what Apple's going to announce but I don't think it's going to be a video iPod. Here's a thought. I think Apple (as I've said before in a previous post/story)is going to introduce a Tivo like devices that hooks into the network and allows you to rent/download movies. (something that you might envision if/when tivo and netflix get rolling together)
My suspicions are even stronger now that this "invite" has gone out. I think it's fairly obvious that a movie download service is a natural fit/extension for Apple given the success of ITMS. Yesterday or the day before I read a couple of articles where some big movie execs (or mpaa or somebody) were saying that they were going to enter the movie download market before the end of the year.
The invitation itself does leave a couple of clues (I think.) The first hint is "one more thing..." Steve's opening line before announcing his big plan. To me that means that Apple's going to announce something big. Not: We've said that video for the iPod is stupid, but "Oh yeah, one more thing... It's a video iPod! TAH DAH!!!! it's the greatest thing ever!" Of coarse, Steve Job's could invoke his RSF and make my spoof a reality rather than a silly musing.
The next clue is the curtains in the invitation. To me those look like the old movie theater curtains they used to use (and maybe still use.) Dunno, but I can't imagine that they would be using theater curtains because somebody in the art department thought it would make a nifty background for "one more thing." But maybe.
Lastly, I don't believe that refreshed computers (desktops or laptops) would be enough of a reason to setup an invitation only press event. Well it could be G5 powerbooks, but I doubt that.
So my offical guess is a Apple branded DVR that hooks into a Apple movie service similar to ITMS.
Obviously I'm not sure what Apple's going to announce but I don't think it's going to be a video iPod. Here's a thought. I think Apple (as I've said before in a previous post/story)is going to introduce a Tivo like devices that hooks into the network and allows you to rent/download movies. (something that you might envision if/when tivo and netflix get rolling together)
My suspicions are even stronger now that this "invite" has gone out. I think it's fairly obvious that a movie download service is a natural fit/extension for Apple given the success of ITMS. Yesterday or the day before I read a couple of articles where some big movie execs (or mpaa or somebody) were saying that they were going to enter the movie download market before the end of the year.
The invitation itself does leave a couple of clues (I think.) The first hint is "one more thing..." Steve's opening line before announcing his big plan. To me that means that Apple's going to announce something big. Not: We've said that video for the iPod is stupid, but "Oh yeah, one more thing... It's a video iPod! TAH DAH!!!! it's the greatest thing ever!" Of coarse, Steve Job's could invoke his RSF and make my claim a reality rather than a silly musing.
The next clue is the curtains in the invitation. To me those look like the old movie theater curtains they used to use (and maybe still use.) Dunno, but I can't imagine that they would be using theater curtains because somebody in the art department thought it would make a nifty background for "one more thing." But maybe.
Lastly, I don't believe that refreshed computers (desktops or laptops) would be enough of a reason to setup an invitation only press event. Well it could be G5 powerbooks, but I doubt that.
So my offical guess is a Apple branded DVR that hooks into a Apple movie service similar to ITMS.
All is not lost. In fact, you situation is much better than you think. In regards to your HD setup I envy you and wish I had it. (I recently moved from Phoenix to a basically dark area.) In fact I percieve that the OtA HD broadcasts are of better quality than what DTV broadcasts. (I attribute this to the mpeg2 encoding DTV does to their video)
Phoenix metro broadcasts (iirc) everything major network in HD OtA (over the air), free.
So, being the super fan that you are I will assume that you have the DirecTivo. If that's the case you're golden. Simply buy a cheapie antenna from radio shack or bestbuy ($30-$40) plug it in (to the tivo box) and tell Tivo you have it. It'll add the channels right in-line with your regular DTV channels. It's a really slick set up.
If you don't have DirecTivo, I'm not sure exactly what you can do (but it can be done you'll just need to do some research), but you probably needs to start buy purchasing an OtA HD decoder. I recommend forgetting about all the hassles and just buying a DirecTivo. Though it's my understanding that DTV will be obsoleting the DirecTivo (which does mpeg2 HD) in favor of a unit that does H.264 HD. So take your tech chances there... I did.
When you get the antenna all you need to do is point it towards South Mountain (that's where all the networks broadcast from.) If you have an attic simply put the antenna in there, you can lay it down on the flooring if you like. (thats what I did, yeah it was ugly, but who goes into the attic/crawlspace?)
I don't know what kind of HOA rules you have to deal with or anything, but there are tons of different ways for you to solve your problem.
Hope this info helps get you started...
I'm not sure how to take your comment. Given the attitude I often see here on Slashdot regarding companies and their desire/need to make money, I'm going to assume you are in the camp of not understanding why making a profit isn't "enough" for shareholders.
The reason that simply making a profit isn't enough is because shareholders buy their shares at a multiple of what the company is actually worth based on their current or potential profit. Often times, as is the case with Ebay, that multiple is really high. Ebay's current share price is currently trading at roughly 57 times earning.
People will buy ebay shares at this price because they speculate that eBay will be able to grow it's earnings a lot in a relatively short period of time.
What it all boils down to is risk/reward. I consider Ebay to be very low risk company, in regards to staying in business. However at their current multiple I believe they are a very high risk company for investing. So if you are going to purchase shares in Ebay, it's a prerequisite that you are going to expect/demand that the company at the very least "try" to grow it's earnings.
My personal opinion is that Ebay buying Paypal was great for Ebay and for Paypal. But Ebay buying Skype makes no sense to me. Hell, I see more opportunities with AOL/TW than I do here... And we all know how well that worked out.
It's an interesting case though. I generally like both companies, and in my household both Skype and Ebay are used on a weekly basis, if not daily. However I don't like this deal, there are a couple of negative issues that this deal presents.
Issue 1: "Buy what you know" It's a good rule of thumb, not a law. I know ebay, I know paypal, I know skype, I know ebay-paypal, but I don't know ebay-paypal-skype. The deal doesn't make sense. But hey what do I know, I'm dumb. The management team at ebay must be much smarter than me, especially at running their own business. Not that I'm suggesting this, but the top management at Enron were "The Smartest Guys In The Room" too.
Of course, I believe that ebay's management is probably pretty good. Well, no I don't, but I don't have any justifications for thinking they are not all that great until this skype deal appeared. In reality, I've always felt that Ebay's management was probably mediocre and was blessed by having a dominant position in a market that was very difficult to screw up. Hence making them look like rock stars to investors. The purchase of Paypal, was a no brainer (even mediocre management could see that.) But the Skype deal just doesn't make sense. Which leads to issue 2.
Issue 2: What's the purchase of a seemingly completely unrelated company really say about Ebay? To me this is a dark cloud. What I think it says is Ebay doesn't think it can grow it's earnings fast enough to placate it's shareholders by doing what it's currently doing. It says to me that Ebay doesn't have a clue what it should do with it's current cash pile. So they went looking for an opportunity. And the best they could come up with is Skype? Again, from where I stand it's a completely unrelated business, and it's a stretch to link their business's in anyway. So, by Ebay throwing so much money at Skype see several possibilities. Ebay's management is not mediocre, but complete morons. Ebay is totally desperate to find a new source of revenue and is willing to throw as much cash as it takes "fix" it's problems. Or management is actually made up of a bunch of business rock stars and have found an opportunity that makes 2-3 billion dollars seem like chump change.
I vote that management are desperate morons. But like I said earlier "What do I know, I'm dumb."
Time will tell I suppose.
As idiotic as that may sound, that's the truth of the matter. You can abstract something as much as you want but if you want to know what the important bits are you have to dig through the abstraction.
For example birth and life are simply precursors to death. What does that tell anybody? Nothing new, that's for sure. (unless somebody forgot to tell you you weren't immortal.)
The abstract of the above poster was that spaceflight can be deadly. (surprised? doubt it)The more specific is that spaceflight itself, when involving an American, so far has not been deadly. Just the launch and re-entry parts.
So if you wanted to witness Nasa having some dramatic problems, you'd pay special attention to the launch and re-entry. Or if you were a Nasa engineer/saftey specialist/whatever again you pay special attention to the most common problem areas. Limited resources require understanding the specifics, not only grasping the abstract.
Thought I'd turn it into a poll.
"For another, kids in the US, as a whole, are far from "all right" these days. If you don't see that, you're not taking an honest look at the state of today's younger generation."
Not to discredit what you're saying but care to back that up with some facts and statistics to illustrate your point?
It's seems that every generation thinks that the upcoming generation is in a worse state than their generation. "You know, back in my day we had to walk to school up hill both ways, in the snow etc etc..."
I may not personally care for the taste's of the up and coming generation (if G4/M TV are any indication.) But it doesn't necessarily mean that the kids aren't "all right."
Lastly, a few bad Apples, Columbine, etc. May be bitter but they certainly don't reflect everyday normal behavior for the vast majority of the population. I'm referring to kids going on slaughtering rampages... Not teasing, clicks, bullies, etc Those have always been around.
There were 2 different Voltron's, the first (lions) and the second (spaceships.)
Basically think an animated version of Power Rangers. (well before the time of the power rangers.)
5 people have robot lions, they use them like cars/tanks... When the fighting against the main baddie of the week get tough, the 5 lions "transform" into a huge humanoid robot. 4 lions make the arms and legs and teh leader lion makes the torso and head.
Microsoft and Apple are monopolies. But they are different kinds, illegal and legal.
Apple, from the beggining, is a monopoly by design. They make the computer and the OS. (not including the brief period where Apple allowed 3rd parties to make mac's)
MS, as much as we may hate to admit it, became a monopoly by choice. Business's and consumers chose MS. Along the way to monopoly'hood MS used it's influence to stifle competition. When you are not a monopoly you can get away with monopolistic practices. So MS used all the dirty tricks (which weren't dirty when they were smaller) to get where they are today.
Now MS, the monopoly, is no longer a monopoly of choice, they are a monopoly of because of the lack of choice. Sure you could always argue that there is choice. You could buy a Mac, our build your own box and install linux instead of using Windows. That's all great to say but the bottom line is that it's just to expensive for that to be a viable choice. It's not just about the hardware but all the custom software and process's that will only work in an MS environment. Transitioning from MS takes a lot of time and money, you can do it, but many factors are working against you.
But being a monopoly even the kind that is MS, is not illegal. What's illegal using using your monopoly position to stifle competition in markets which you do not compete in directly. Or to use your position to influence companies that are not in your market to prvent other from entering your market. (think netscape and bundeling) For example, Why do people buy Dell's over Gateway's? Price and service. (other factors as well, but the vast majority of the time it boils down to price and service.) So Dell wants to sell Linux boxes, MS says "no way, if you do we will raise the price you pay for Windows $100 and lower the price Gateway pays by $100."
This would kill Dell. They would be at a total competitive dis-advantage and I doubt they would survive it without giving in to MS's demands. So, the easy solution? Don't sell linux... Or sell linux, but still pay MS for the copy of Windows per box. In fact the deal might be, make the exact same linux box more expensive than the windows box.
Apple may be a monopoly, but they are a monopoly of their nitch. There are plenty of alternatives, just no alternatives if you want a Mac. Guess what? That's how it is and that's ok. Lot's of alternatives to BMW, but none if you want the BMW.
But in a semi-related note, if Apple can maintain and grow it's position in the digital music market, expect to see the record labels start suing Apple for unfair monopolistic practices. (this is years down the road, when downloadable music is the norm, and hard copies are the exception.)
DirectTV's HD Tivo's don't "require" a land line either. But, you need to use the land line if you want to purchase PPV type stuff.
I've never plugged my unit into the land line, though I'm about to because of the annoying message I get each day telling me I haven't called in several hundred days.
No It's not that stupid.
HD Tivo's are the unit's produced to work with DirecTV's HD. These boxes have their USB Ports disabled. So you suggestion will not work. AFAIK.
If I'm wrong somebody please enlighten me because I would like to put my HD Tivo on the network like I do with my regular series 2 Tivo's.