or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by UIGuy

I am not one to believe any of this venture capital valuation voodoo... Keepin' it real: 1. What IP do they own? 2. What are their revenue prospects? It takes a lot of revenue to make your company really worth 4B dollars. Or at least it should. Playing with mirrors in the fun house can make the thinnest company look fat. So, yeah, I would of sold. And gone on to make something else.
Tooling for a case is several orders of magnitude cheaper than tooling for the case itself... Plus it gives Apple endorsed ( taxed) cases a leg up... For about 2 weeks... It would, however, be sheer genius if Apple were actually behind all the leaks. Leaking this here and that there... And then finding out who could keep a secret and who couldn't. Kind of like using dye to find where the leak occurred...
While this may work for male executives, I would never, ever, ever try this with a female executive - too high a chance that it would be considered / construed as condescending - regardless of how it was intended. Nope, just 'fired'.
Not sure what is more disturbing... Having a CEO who had to be fired by phone - or having a Chairman that didn't know to contact HR/IT and have her network privileges revoked first... But seriously, Yahoo has great potential. I liken them to a pile of Legos sitting in the corner - a great opportunity... But most people will just build something that nobody else recognizes. They need to regroup. Get rid of the clown pants interface. And make me want to use...
Markets don't like uncertainty. Steve retired, uncertainty was reduced. But it was a partial retirement, so he's still kind of there - so there is no vacuum. Further, the uncertainty about Apple's eventual succession plan was reduced.
Perhaps. But 'some' don't understand the rules of the game as it is being played out... Baseball is baseball - in one division the pitchers bat and in another you have designated hitters. Hardly a double standard.
Why buy the milk when the cow is cheaper?Sounds like the sum of the pieces is worth well more than the current configuration of the whole. Anyone want to reconsider that "offer" from Carl Icahn? http://www.forbes.com/2003/11/07/cx_pp_1107kodak.html
Not necessarily. The difference is largely where you choose to play. Apple has decided not to focus their research in the areas of fundamental technology that will be controlled by a (more or less) fixed price licensing agreement. They simply agree to pay the price for the licensing and focus instead on those areas which differentiate their product from the competition. And let's not forget that Samsung and others ARE being paid for the technology they developed. ...
If the fundamental technology is covered by the standards, then it becomes an issue governed by licensing - not intellectual infringement, per say. Think of it as two different leagues. Same game. Two different sets of rules.
This is interesting. To simplify - in exchange for having their technology included as part of a standard, a company accepts a fair and reasonable payment (licensing fees) in lieu of the suing the offending party. Standards generally mean interoperability. This calculus is well understood by all the major players. For patents not covered by standards, well, that is where differentiation occurs. What a number of companies have not realized is the true value...
New Posts  All Forums: