There is no retaliation involved against companies choosing to support blu-ray. Your perception of what qualifies as retaliation and what actually is retaliation do not match.
With your view, if I bought a coworker a soda for helping me fix a hard problem, I'd be retaliating against all of my coworkers (which is utter nonsense).
And the rest of your point is null and void -- whine and bitch when they DO something retaliatory, not because they COULD do something.
This does not involve any leveraging of their monopoly. They are not taking any actions preventing blu-ray from functioning, or in any manner excluding blu-ray from use in computers.
I think Yahoo's forward PE is overly agressive -- it assumes revenue growth of 46%, and I haven't seen anything which suggests that is a realistic expectation.
I'm assuming a worst case average growth of 20% over the course of 6 years, with the PE dropping under 30. I don't consider their current growth rate in areas that are currently producing them revenue to be sustainable, but that is just my opinion. They need to expand into new areas to maintain their growth, and I haven't seen anything but speculation about what those areas may be.
I consider most stocks with a PE over 30 to be overvalued; typically the price of stocks with a PE greater than 30 are fueled by market speculation and emotion, not performance. These are things that you can manage, but I'm not willing to put in the time required to monitor a company to compensate for fluctuations that are the result of that speculation and emotion.
I can see you muttering to youself "That idiot! Why is he underestimating Google's growth?" If I overestimate and am wrong, I generally lose money. If I underestimate, still buy the stock, and am wrong, I make more money than I expected. If I underestimate, don't buy the stock, and am wrong, I probably made out ok on my alternate choice.
The risk, of course, is that I miss out on some phenomenal stock that could have made me a ton of money. But I don't treat investments like they're a lottery ticket, so...:)
A high forward PE is also not exactly something you want, though the rate of downward movement can be a good indicator of future performance (it is just another way to look at earnings growth). It is not, however, the only thing you should look at.
Their foward PE is also nowhere near 50 -- it is currently pegged at 74. If you assume that they do equally well FY06 their PE will be 56, still above your 50 figure.
As I said, their current stock price pretty much factors in all growth expected to occur over the next 6 years, and Google has to perform at an almost unsustainable growth level to meet those expectations.
Their PE ration looks excellent? Are you on crack? Google's PE ratio is 95.47! That is a rediculously high PE ratio; it means you're paying $100 to make $1. An excessively high PE ratio means that the stock is priced with future performance already factored in.
In other words, right now Google's stock price already factors in their earnings growth over the next 6 years, assuming that Google's earnings can grow at a rate of 20%.
The only reason to buy Google stock right now is if you think the hype will continue to drive their stock price higher.
Technically, the person ordering via mail order is responsible for remitting sales tax to the local taxing authority, not the seller. But most states excempt purchases in a year to under a certain amount. Nobody actually complies with it, nor have I ever heard of it actually being enforced...
The EU ruling was absolute utter bullshit. Microsoft "violated" EU law by including a media player -- a standard feature in Windows since Windows 3.1. The argument was that this was strongarming Real out of the market.
Yes, the EU posterchild victim is Real. The company who produces tries to make it as hard as possible to find the free version of the player on their website. The company bundling masses of spyware in their free product. The company whos product takes over playing all of your file extensions without asking. The company whos product puts itself in your start folder without asking. The company whos product puts a dumbass real icon in your system tray without asking (which takes 15 minutes to find the right option to turn off). The company whos video quality is craptastic. The company who produces a player so buggy it is difficult to watch a movie in. The company who's products user interface is ugly that the XP playschool theme looks like a piece of art.
Do I really need to go on?
Yes, according to the EU, the reason Real "failed" is because Microsoft included a media player that wasn't a steaming pile of shit, and not because Real's player was a steaming pile of shit.
This whole thing is a sham. The EU doesn't give a shit about media players or Real. It was just a convenient excuse.
The act of circumventing copy protection in order to sell 77 unauthorized copies was legal before the DCMA.
This is essentially the difference between commiting a burglary and commiting a burglary with a weapon. Why are there two different statutes governing the same offense? Because one is considered more serious than the other.
No. If you spent more than 2 seconds researching it you'd discover that there are many more premium units being produced and sold than core units, by roughly a 4:1 ratio.
A parable is meant to be a learning tool -- a method of expressing a concept in a simple manner that everyone can understand. You're overthinking it -- trying to read more into it than is really there. There would be no purpose to adding additional hidden meanings, because they would not express a concept in a simple manner that everyone could understand.
If you choose to believe that there is more to it than that, so be it -- I won't be able to convince you otherwise.
The story is meant to tell people that the "worth" of their charity is not directly related to how much you give. The worth is relative to the sacrafice that is required to give it. The person who gives away their lunch money is making a great sacrafice, even if it is only a small amount of money. The person giving away money they could use to buy their 5th car is also making a sacrafice, but not as great as the person giving away their lunch money.
This story isn't meant to tell you that God isn't happy unless you're suffering. It is meant to illustrate that amounts don't matter. God doesn't look more favorably on you because you donated lots of money; you can't buy your way into heaven -- he looks more favorably on you because of the sacrafices you had to make to give away that money.
Re:You're forgetting something important
on
The Shadow of Kong
·
· Score: 1
Percent of sales of TVs means nothing, because people do not buy a new TV every year.
Did you stop reading my post at that point? Of course it doesn't mean that everyone gets a new tv. It means that when people buy a new TV, half of them go for the hidef tv. Next year, more than half of the people who buy a tv will buy a hidef tv. People don't see hidef tv's as some sort of gimick, or something that's too expensive to consider -- they see them as something they want.
Second, they dont give a shit, to them their current TV is just fine.
Ah, the wonders of generalizing the feelings of 100 million people in one sentence. Thank you for playing, come again.
I would like to know what this statistic is based on
Do you have some reading disorder, or suffer from periodic bouts of memory loss? The figures, trends, math, and assupmtions I used (which WERE on the conservative side) were in the previous paragraph.
You still think it's such a bad move?
Again with the lack of reading comprehension. I never said it was a bad move. I said it wasn't a GOOD move. It is not an advantage. It isn't a box you can check off that makes you better than your competition.
Are you dense? That's not what I'm saying at all! Being "lowdef" is not a marketing advantage, period. It may not be a huge disadvantage, but it certainly isn't something to be proud of. Any arguement to the contrary is ignorant fanboyism.
Re:The Revo strategy makes more sense to me now
on
The Shadow of Kong
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You're arguing that people are going to shun hidef technology -- that it won't catch on. It isn't happening.
People want that fancy HDTV -- they're just waiting for the price to drop or are waiting for their current set to "expire" before replacing it. All HDTV's don't cost > $1000 either.
25% of the TV's sold in the US were hidef in 2004. Estimates for 2005 are roughly 50% of the TVs sold. And it is looking like sales of hidef TV's will reach critical mass in 2006.
I can't see what universe someone can argue that HDTV is just a "fad" that is going to go away.
There are roughly 100 million households in the US. Using your 2004 penetration estimate of 10%, that means 10 million households have hdtvs. Nearly 25 million tv's are sold in this country every year. If we assume 50% of the hidef TVs sold make it into "new" households, penetration during 2005 will reach 16%. By the end of 2006 we're looking at 25%. By the end of 2007, penetration should be at around 36%.
One in every 3 customers will have a hidef tv in their house when the Revolution sees it's first Christmas in the states. And this is completely ignoring the demongraphic data (which would suggest that the consumers being targeted are more likely to have a hidef set than not).
I can't see how anyone can argue that it is an advantage to be selling a new console that doesn't support hidef when 1 in 3 possible customers could take advantage of it -- especially when your competition supports it.
Re:The Revo strategy makes more sense to me now
on
The Shadow of Kong
·
· Score: 1
The law mandates that TVs be capable of receiving an ATSC signal, which may be transmitted in any of the following horizontal resolutions/fields:
How the TV chooses to display those signals is up to the hardware manufacturer, but they must be capable of receiving and displaying a hidef signal.
Re:The Revo strategy makes more sense to me now
on
The Shadow of Kong
·
· Score: 1
The first is that HD will catch on, who knows how popular it'll be over the Revo's life cycle? If it becomes the standard, will the Revo's graphics start feeling dated when our eyes are spoiled by HD?
You act like people can choose to continue purchasing SD tv's indefinately. It isn't a matter of "if it catches on", it is a matter of "when does the government throw the switch?"
By the time 2007 rolls around, every TV sold in the US (by law) must be capable of receiving an hd signal.
Re:Half ton of bio-mechanically enhanced armor-cla
on
When Halo Met DOA
·
· Score: 1
Given that said Japanese girl can jump off of a 10+ story building without skipping a beat, you'd probably need to be an armor-clad uber-trained soldier to have a fair chance of winning...
Japanese care manufacturers do not have a zero defect policy on vehicles they manufacture, as evidenced through produces produced by companies such at Mitsubishi. The difference you are referring to are long term reliability, build quality, and value. These are more "subjective" measures not present (with the exception of value) in electronics.
Before you go off on a tangent trying to relate them to electronics: - Long term reliability is a measure of unscheduled maintenance a vehicle incurs over its lifetime that is not covered by waranty. Electronics do not generally have servicable parts. - Build quality is a measure of how the vehicle wears over time (ex: how long it takes for the headliner to fall down, how much the dash rattles, the "thunk" of the door, quality of materials used for various interior surfaces, etc). This is a subjective measure of non-warranted "defects" in a vehicle.
The differentiating factor in both cases is "non-warranted defects"; build quality for the xbox360 can not yet be evaluated as no unit has exceeded the factory warranty.
At this point, nobody has figured out how to do it. So, right now, lots of work is required to hack the box. It looks like they turned the security dial up to 11 this time around...
Most of what is known is based on speculation at this point; you can find a good collection of the information available here: - http://www.free60.org/wiki/Main_Page
Slashdot Mirror
There is no retaliation involved against companies choosing to support blu-ray. Your perception of what qualifies as retaliation and what actually is retaliation do not match.
With your view, if I bought a coworker a soda for helping me fix a hard problem, I'd be retaliating against all of my coworkers (which is utter nonsense).
And the rest of your point is null and void -- whine and bitch when they DO something retaliatory, not because they COULD do something.
This does not involve any leveraging of their monopoly. They are not taking any actions preventing blu-ray from functioning, or in any manner excluding blu-ray from use in computers.
I think Yahoo's forward PE is overly agressive -- it assumes revenue growth of 46%, and I haven't seen anything which suggests that is a realistic expectation.
... :)
I'm assuming a worst case average growth of 20% over the course of 6 years, with the PE dropping under 30. I don't consider their current growth rate in areas that are currently producing them revenue to be sustainable, but that is just my opinion. They need to expand into new areas to maintain their growth, and I haven't seen anything but speculation about what those areas may be.
I consider most stocks with a PE over 30 to be overvalued; typically the price of stocks with a PE greater than 30 are fueled by market speculation and emotion, not performance. These are things that you can manage, but I'm not willing to put in the time required to monitor a company to compensate for fluctuations that are the result of that speculation and emotion.
I can see you muttering to youself "That idiot! Why is he underestimating Google's growth?" If I overestimate and am wrong, I generally lose money. If I underestimate, still buy the stock, and am wrong, I make more money than I expected. If I underestimate, don't buy the stock, and am wrong, I probably made out ok on my alternate choice.
The risk, of course, is that I miss out on some phenomenal stock that could have made me a ton of money. But I don't treat investments like they're a lottery ticket, so
A high forward PE is also not exactly something you want, though the rate of downward movement can be a good indicator of future performance (it is just another way to look at earnings growth). It is not, however, the only thing you should look at.
Their foward PE is also nowhere near 50 -- it is currently pegged at 74. If you assume that they do equally well FY06 their PE will be 56, still above your 50 figure.
As I said, their current stock price pretty much factors in all growth expected to occur over the next 6 years, and Google has to perform at an almost unsustainable growth level to meet those expectations.
Their PE ration looks excellent? Are you on crack? Google's PE ratio is 95.47! That is a rediculously high PE ratio; it means you're paying $100 to make $1. An excessively high PE ratio means that the stock is priced with future performance already factored in.
In other words, right now Google's stock price already factors in their earnings growth over the next 6 years, assuming that Google's earnings can grow at a rate of 20%.
The only reason to buy Google stock right now is if you think the hype will continue to drive their stock price higher.
Technically, the person ordering via mail order is responsible for remitting sales tax to the local taxing authority, not the seller. But most states excempt purchases in a year to under a certain amount. Nobody actually complies with it, nor have I ever heard of it actually being enforced ...
Real is what they used to get at the other aspects. Without Real, the EU had no basis for "preemptive" action on the server side.
The EU ruling was absolute utter bullshit. Microsoft "violated" EU law by including a media player -- a standard feature in Windows since Windows 3.1. The argument was that this was strongarming Real out of the market.
Yes, the EU posterchild victim is Real. The company who produces tries to make it as hard as possible to find the free version of the player on their website. The company bundling masses of spyware in their free product. The company whos product takes over playing all of your file extensions without asking. The company whos product puts itself in your start folder without asking. The company whos product puts a dumbass real icon in your system tray without asking (which takes 15 minutes to find the right option to turn off). The company whos video quality is craptastic. The company who produces a player so buggy it is difficult to watch a movie in. The company who's products user interface is ugly that the XP playschool theme looks like a piece of art.
Do I really need to go on?
Yes, according to the EU, the reason Real "failed" is because Microsoft included a media player that wasn't a steaming pile of shit, and not because Real's player was a steaming pile of shit.
This whole thing is a sham. The EU doesn't give a shit about media players or Real. It was just a convenient excuse.
I thought we hated things like clippy around here?
The act of circumventing copy protection in order to sell 77 unauthorized copies was legal before the DCMA.
This is essentially the difference between commiting a burglary and commiting a burglary with a weapon. Why are there two different statutes governing the same offense? Because one is considered more serious than the other.
And said activities WERE used in this infringment.
Google's new motto: "Put a stake in evil".
This is probably the most insightful comment I've ever read on Slashdot.
No. If you spent more than 2 seconds researching it you'd discover that there are many more premium units being produced and sold than core units, by roughly a 4:1 ratio.
The ratio of core:premium is supposedly 1:4.
Actually, this makes me think of the clock from the Harry Potter books ...
A parable is meant to be a learning tool -- a method of expressing a concept in a simple manner that everyone can understand. You're overthinking it -- trying to read more into it than is really there. There would be no purpose to adding additional hidden meanings, because they would not express a concept in a simple manner that everyone could understand.
If you choose to believe that there is more to it than that, so be it -- I won't be able to convince you otherwise.
The story is meant to tell people that the "worth" of their charity is not directly related to how much you give. The worth is relative to the sacrafice that is required to give it. The person who gives away their lunch money is making a great sacrafice, even if it is only a small amount of money. The person giving away money they could use to buy their 5th car is also making a sacrafice, but not as great as the person giving away their lunch money.
This story isn't meant to tell you that God isn't happy unless you're suffering. It is meant to illustrate that amounts don't matter. God doesn't look more favorably on you because you donated lots of money; you can't buy your way into heaven -- he looks more favorably on you because of the sacrafices you had to make to give away that money.
Percent of sales of TVs means nothing, because people do not buy a new TV every year.
Did you stop reading my post at that point? Of course it doesn't mean that everyone gets a new tv. It means that when people buy a new TV, half of them go for the hidef tv. Next year, more than half of the people who buy a tv will buy a hidef tv. People don't see hidef tv's as some sort of gimick, or something that's too expensive to consider -- they see them as something they want.
Second, they dont give a shit, to them their current TV is just fine.
Ah, the wonders of generalizing the feelings of 100 million people in one sentence. Thank you for playing, come again.
I would like to know what this statistic is based on
Do you have some reading disorder, or suffer from periodic bouts of memory loss? The figures, trends, math, and assupmtions I used (which WERE on the conservative side) were in the previous paragraph.
You still think it's such a bad move?
Again with the lack of reading comprehension. I never said it was a bad move. I said it wasn't a GOOD move. It is not an advantage. It isn't a box you can check off that makes you better than your competition.
Are you dense? That's not what I'm saying at all! Being "lowdef" is not a marketing advantage, period. It may not be a huge disadvantage, but it certainly isn't something to be proud of. Any arguement to the contrary is ignorant fanboyism.
You're arguing that people are going to shun hidef technology -- that it won't catch on. It isn't happening.
People want that fancy HDTV -- they're just waiting for the price to drop or are waiting for their current set to "expire" before replacing it. All HDTV's don't cost > $1000 either.
25% of the TV's sold in the US were hidef in 2004. Estimates for 2005 are roughly 50% of the TVs sold. And it is looking like sales of hidef TV's will reach critical mass in 2006.
I can't see what universe someone can argue that HDTV is just a "fad" that is going to go away.
There are roughly 100 million households in the US. Using your 2004 penetration estimate of 10%, that means 10 million households have hdtvs. Nearly 25 million tv's are sold in this country every year. If we assume 50% of the hidef TVs sold make it into "new" households, penetration during 2005 will reach 16%. By the end of 2006 we're looking at 25%. By the end of 2007, penetration should be at around 36%.
One in every 3 customers will have a hidef tv in their house when the Revolution sees it's first Christmas in the states. And this is completely ignoring the demongraphic data (which would suggest that the consumers being targeted are more likely to have a hidef set than not).
I can't see how anyone can argue that it is an advantage to be selling a new console that doesn't support hidef when 1 in 3 possible customers could take advantage of it -- especially when your competition supports it.
The law mandates that TVs be capable of receiving an ATSC signal, which may be transmitted in any of the following horizontal resolutions/fields:
480i60, 480p24, 480p30 576i50, 576p25, 480p60, 576p50, 720i50, 720i60, 720p24, 720p25, 720p30, 720p50, 720p60, 1080i50, 1080i60, 1080p24, 1080p25, 1080p30
How the TV chooses to display those signals is up to the hardware manufacturer, but they must be capable of receiving and displaying a hidef signal.
The first is that HD will catch on, who knows how popular it'll be over the Revo's life cycle? If it becomes the standard, will the Revo's graphics start feeling dated when our eyes are spoiled by HD?
You act like people can choose to continue purchasing SD tv's indefinately. It isn't a matter of "if it catches on", it is a matter of "when does the government throw the switch?"
By the time 2007 rolls around, every TV sold in the US (by law) must be capable of receiving an hd signal.
Given that said Japanese girl can jump off of a 10+ story building without skipping a beat, you'd probably need to be an armor-clad uber-trained soldier to have a fair chance of winning ...
Japanese care manufacturers do not have a zero defect policy on vehicles they manufacture, as evidenced through produces produced by companies such at Mitsubishi. The difference you are referring to are long term reliability, build quality, and value. These are more "subjective" measures not present (with the exception of value) in electronics.
Before you go off on a tangent trying to relate them to electronics:
- Long term reliability is a measure of unscheduled maintenance a vehicle incurs over its lifetime that is not covered by waranty. Electronics do not generally have servicable parts.
- Build quality is a measure of how the vehicle wears over time (ex: how long it takes for the headliner to fall down, how much the dash rattles, the "thunk" of the door, quality of materials used for various interior surfaces, etc). This is a subjective measure of non-warranted "defects" in a vehicle.
The differentiating factor in both cases is "non-warranted defects"; build quality for the xbox360 can not yet be evaluated as no unit has exceeded the factory warranty.
At this point, nobody has figured out how to do it. So, right now, lots of work is required to hack the box. It looks like they turned the security dial up to 11 this time around ...
Most of what is known is based on speculation at this point; you can find a good collection of the information available here:
- http://www.free60.org/wiki/Main_Page