I'm not a Wall Street professional and I can see that buying this stock is a BAD idea... It's going to be too volitile to trade for anyone that isn't an experienced twitch-trader who's got a $10K a month dedicated real-time connection to the trading floor.
The price is based on all the hype, the solid income and asset ownership of the company doesn't warrent the kind of prices they are posting. I mean, how many employees do they have? A couple hundred? How much property to they own?
In the real world, it's a small to medium business... $85 a share is something that multi-national corporations are worth.
I think it's pretty pointless to buy Google stock anyway... It's not like you're getting in on the ground floor of a penny-stock IPO. It it was a small company selling out stocks to get investment capital it would be different. With companys like Yahoo and Cisco no one knew how big they were going to become. So when they did make it big, the stock you bought for a penny ended up being worth hundreds. Google is already big, so the only instant millionares to come of this will be the people who work there.
Our next major economic dowfall will be Intellectual Property related. The US consumer base will become fed up with exclusives, restrictions and pay-per-exhibit models of content & products.
We will see people forming newsworthy general boycotts of things. Only then will legislation begin to really take notice of consumer fancy.
Yes, but the problem with this in Asia is that the market isn't saturated, it's emerging and at this point the users are willing to accept anything that will do the job for them.
"Sempron PC w/ Debian Linux. Our computers cost less and offer full high-res capabilites as well as being able to run as many applications as you like. Buy a PC with Windows XP-SE and you'll be doing less for more money."
They are truely operating out of their element here. Offering a crippled version is an example of their current business model in a North American market. In Asia they do not have the existing dependence on the product they have here. Offering a crippled version to low income customers may work ONLY if the customer is familiar with the product.
Over there there is no existing dependence on the product. New computer users will be chosing between a fully functional, feature packed operating system that is free or a minimally functional product that is somewhat expensive? I mean, which one would you choose?
The only way they are going to achive significant saturation in emerging O.S. markets is to offer a time-limited version of the fully functional product. The user becomes dependent and then must purchase the product. Microsoft's existing business model just will not work there.
Why would you pay for a crippled, low functionality product, regarless of how "cheap" it is? There are full function, feature packed Open Source operating systems available for free.
I don't see how lowering the capabilities of their software, regardless of price, will make it MORE attrative.
Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot now. Microsoft will know how Netscape felt trying to compete with a "free" competitor in an emerging market.
What do you want me to say? I'm a very strong opponent of greedy, opportunistic capitalist companies. While they may conduct their business legally, they secretly operate with the ethical code of a common thief. They seek to exploit loopholes in the law to achieve the goals of a burglar in the night.
The action of making a public statement that they *might* use the DMCA is an attempt to intimidate Real. This is no different than a group of thugs visiting a new store in town and telling the proprietor, "You're too close to our stores, now leave town or else..." Just mentioning that disgusting law has a chilling effect. How many people working in secret on something for the iPod are now saying, "Gee, I don't know if I want to pursue this now. I could end up in jail over it."
Why would I put razor blades in apples? I just made a statement about my disdain for unjust laws and criminal behavior in corporations and you equate that with me trying to harm some innocent person?
I have lost all respect for Apple at this very moment. They have, like so many others, used the DMCA in an anti-competitive way. You cannot excuse one person's using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and hold everyone else accountable.
The DMCA stands in contradiction to The Constitution and is an unjust and unethical law. Reverse engineering to make interoperable products is an ethical and necessary part of free enterprise! If you think we have problems as a result of the DMCA now, just wait. The problem will get far worse as technology continues to permeate society. If we had more fully educated citizens we wouldn't have to worry about such laws because Jury Nullification would put them to rest. (See WWW.FIJA.ORG)
If Apple goes through with this THEY will be guilty of ethical crimes that are unfortunately legal by technicality. If the DMCA didn't exist they could be held accountable for anti-competitive tactics. My "beef" is not only with DMCA; my "beef" also includes anyone who would seek to abuse it. After all, MediaMax decided NOT to ask for DMCA action against a university student because they were afraid it would have a chilling effect on research. (Something I'd hope YOU would appreciate.)
And with a rebel yell:
To Hell with the DMCA!
To Hell with the people who authored the DMCA!
To Hell with Apple for abusing the DMCA!
...and To Hell with YOU for supporting yet another tramping of the Rights of consumers by saying, "It's okay because..."
Slashdot Mirror
Good! I was running out of ways to bring Cocane into the country unnoticed!
I'm not a Wall Street professional and I can see that buying this stock is a BAD idea... It's going to be too volitile to trade for anyone that isn't an experienced twitch-trader who's got a $10K a month dedicated real-time connection to the trading floor.
The price is based on all the hype, the solid income and asset ownership of the company doesn't warrent the kind of prices they are posting. I mean, how many employees do they have? A couple hundred? How much property to they own?
In the real world, it's a small to medium business... $85 a share is something that multi-national corporations are worth.
I think it's pretty pointless to buy Google stock anyway... It's not like you're getting in on the ground floor of a penny-stock IPO. It it was a small company selling out stocks to get investment capital it would be different. With companys like Yahoo and Cisco no one knew how big they were going to become. So when they did make it big, the stock you bought for a penny ended up being worth hundreds. Google is already big, so the only instant millionares to come of this will be the people who work there.
Here we go dot-com boom #2, I'll be getting off now... Perhaps I'll become a nurse, before they outsource it.
Our next major economic dowfall will be Intellectual Property related. The US consumer base will become fed up with exclusives, restrictions and pay-per-exhibit models of content & products. We will see people forming newsworthy general boycotts of things. Only then will legislation begin to really take notice of consumer fancy.
Yes, but the problem with this in Asia is that the market isn't saturated, it's emerging and at this point the users are willing to accept anything that will do the job for them.
Excatly!
I can see the white box advertisements now...
"Sempron PC w/ Debian Linux. Our computers cost less and offer full high-res capabilites as well as being able to run as many applications as you like. Buy a PC with Windows XP-SE and you'll be doing less for more money."
They are truely operating out of their element here. Offering a crippled version is an example of their current business model in a North American market. In Asia they do not have the existing dependence on the product they have here. Offering a crippled version to low income customers may work ONLY if the customer is familiar with the product.
Over there there is no existing dependence on the product. New computer users will be chosing between a fully functional, feature packed operating system that is free or a minimally functional product that is somewhat expensive? I mean, which one would you choose?
The only way they are going to achive significant saturation in emerging O.S. markets is to offer a time-limited version of the fully functional product. The user becomes dependent and then must purchase the product. Microsoft's existing business model just will not work there.
Why would you pay for a crippled, low functionality product, regarless of how "cheap" it is? There are full function, feature packed Open Source operating systems available for free. I don't see how lowering the capabilities of their software, regardless of price, will make it MORE attrative. Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot now. Microsoft will know how Netscape felt trying to compete with a "free" competitor in an emerging market.
Perhaps they are refering to the cable modem triggering a WOL (wake-on-LAN) event? Does anyone know if this is possible? I think it might be...
What do you want me to say? I'm a very strong opponent of greedy, opportunistic capitalist companies. While they may conduct their business legally, they secretly operate with the ethical code of a common thief. They seek to exploit loopholes in the law to achieve the goals of a burglar in the night.
The action of making a public statement that they *might* use the DMCA is an attempt to intimidate Real. This is no different than a group of thugs visiting a new store in town and telling the proprietor, "You're too close to our stores, now leave town or else..." Just mentioning that disgusting law has a chilling effect. How many people working in secret on something for the iPod are now saying, "Gee, I don't know if I want to pursue this now. I could end up in jail over it."
Why would I put razor blades in apples? I just made a statement about my disdain for unjust laws and criminal behavior in corporations and you equate that with me trying to harm some innocent person?
I have lost all respect for Apple at this very moment. They have, like so many others, used the DMCA in an anti-competitive way. You cannot excuse one person's using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and hold everyone else accountable.
The DMCA stands in contradiction to The Constitution and is an unjust and unethical law. Reverse engineering to make interoperable products is an ethical and necessary part of free enterprise! If you think we have problems as a result of the DMCA now, just wait. The problem will get far worse as technology continues to permeate society. If we had more fully educated citizens we wouldn't have to worry about such laws because Jury Nullification would put them to rest. (See WWW.FIJA.ORG)
If Apple goes through with this THEY will be guilty of ethical crimes that are unfortunately legal by technicality. If the DMCA didn't exist they could be held accountable for anti-competitive tactics. My "beef" is not only with DMCA; my "beef" also includes anyone who would seek to abuse it. After all, MediaMax decided NOT to ask for DMCA action against a university student because they were afraid it would have a chilling effect on research. (Something I'd hope YOU would appreciate.)
And with a rebel yell:
To Hell with the DMCA!
To Hell with the people who authored the DMCA!
To Hell with Apple for abusing the DMCA!
...and To Hell with YOU for supporting yet another tramping of the Rights of consumers by saying, "It's okay because..."