or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by RFHJr

This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market.  Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.     That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade.  Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle.  Stay away from the...
The stay shows that infringers have the advantage with the slow judicial process trumping the rapid product cycle in smartphones.  It puts innovative companies at a huge disadvantage.
Apple always surprises with better margins than Street estimates.  It negotiates for better and better pricing, so what it paid "yesterday" shouldn't be rolled 1:1 into forecasts.
Dimensions look right, but the workmanship, even for a mock-up looks too "basement" to me.
Redux of AMZN's Kindle Fire.  Lose on the hardware and hope to make up on content sales.  I predict same outcome ... initial sales enthusiasm followed by deadly silence.
Lost in much of the conversation are the benefits, such as health insurance, stock options and employee discounts that Apple pays.  I visit my local Apple Store at the Natick (MA) Mall several times a month.  I pass by a Lululemon store down the aisle.  The Lulu store is empty and the one or two clerks are re-folding and cleaning up shelves.  They look lonely and dispirited.     The Apple Store is always "Rocking the Casbah."  Customers are immediately greeted by...
This decision is a real blow to IP and by extension to every innovative company's R & D.  The courts are allowing copycat manufacturers to prosper, denying relief and then saying "live with it."  In the context of the fast pace of product development, infringing companies can start with "borrowed science," establish brand and market, and then come forward with Gen 2 & 3 products with "work arounds."  
In complete agreement.  The security issue is a ruse in that IBM's messages are drops in a very big ocean - nearly impossible to separate, and undoubtedly impossible to screen for nefarious business intelligence.  BTW, does Apple really care what IBM is doing?  I doubt it!
Apples' "Agency Model" encouraged a wider selection of e-books to be released coincident with the conventional hardback books.  Prior to Apple's entry into the field, publishers withheld new titles from the ebook market.   The DoJ's arguments are hard to follow, in that the consumer is free to purchase from Amazon or Apple.  If the DoJ is eager to prosecute, it should be considering suit against Amazon for predatory pricing.  It routinely sells books at or below...
Dan Hesse is a true leader.  Kudos for protecting your employees and returning your bonus (even though it was well earned)!
New Posts  All Forums: