Sarah Hastings
Oct 19, 01:39 AM
I think I am going to check out eBay�I saw few there a couple of months back.
jettredmont
May 2, 04:56 PM
This concept might seem alien to a lot of MacRumours users, but being a 'switcher', the method of deleting any app on OS X currently seems very ad hoc. I've been a mac user now for about 4 years and yet the idea of having to delete an app by dragging it to the trash seems very... strange. You never know if you've deleted ALL of that program.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
Microsoft have managed to get one thing right in Windows. A specific tool (Add/Remove Programs) to delete a program. That's something that I genuinely feel is lacking in OS X and this idea of clicking and holding in LaunchPad makes sense. It's imple enough: most users who own an iPhone will have no trouble in adopting this method. And what's more, it makes it instantly accessible to anyone who uses a mac. In addition, it goes a step further than Microsoft. It avoids making more novice users from having to delve in to a complex window of settings. A step in the right direction? I think so!
So personally, I think this is a very simple yet very effective change to make to OS X and should be a welcome sign of the things to come in Lion!
When I switched (back in 2002), the hardest thing in this respect was getting it through my head that that one icon sitting in the /Applications folder really is the whole app (*for well-behaved drag-install apps). Yes, you have "tools" like AppCleaner which delete all the prefs and user files for an app as well, obliterating any trace that the app was ver on your system, but those are just prefs. If the app itself is removed, the prefs are just text (or sometimes binary compressed) files sitting on the hard drive. They don't matter.
This is in absolute contrast to Windows where any app worth its salt comes with an installer, which spreads unknowable components throughout the hard drive and changes various settings everywhere in the system. Of course you need another automated tool to (sometimes) undo all those changes.
Since the trend in Mac software has been a lot of large installers (the majority are well-behaved drag-install apps, but I see installers on apps which really shouldn't need an opaque installer at all). OS X doesn't have a good answer for those kinds of apps, and it is indeed messy.
The App Store, however, essentially moves us back to a compartmentalized app workspace which can be removed as automatically as it is laid down.
Zadillo
Oct 23, 01:18 PM
Apple needs to get away from making such a big deal our of small updates (processor change) as Intel will have such things changing more often than motorola or ibm ever did. apple should reserve such announcements and hoopla for major revisions or complete overhauls. based on recent benchmarks there is little performance improvement in these new chips save for the speed bump.
How exactly is Apple making a big deal out of small updates? The recent processor updates Apple has done (Core Duo to Core 2 Duo on the iMac and the speedbumped Core Duos on the MBP earlier this year) were quiet launches, with no announcements or hoopla at all really. The only real hoopla with the iMac was about the 24" screen, but it was certainly subdued. Hell, Apple made a bigger deal out of the Apple Hi-Fi.
The only people making a big deal out of it are ourselves.
How exactly is Apple making a big deal out of small updates? The recent processor updates Apple has done (Core Duo to Core 2 Duo on the iMac and the speedbumped Core Duos on the MBP earlier this year) were quiet launches, with no announcements or hoopla at all really. The only real hoopla with the iMac was about the 24" screen, but it was certainly subdued. Hell, Apple made a bigger deal out of the Apple Hi-Fi.
The only people making a big deal out of it are ourselves.
supremedesigner
Jul 19, 05:53 PM
Boooo-Yahhhh!
Quoth Jim Cramer.
Graphics Justin Bieber Myspace
Quoth Jim Cramer.
Hugh
Dec 2, 08:01 PM
I'm not trying to bash the Zune, but I don't think Microsoft is going to be able to hurt Apple's Market share, it's too late in the market. With Apple having 75% of the market share of the MP3 music players with no sign of it droping.
justin bieber wallpaper 2009
justin bieber wallpaper 2009
Justin bieber wallpapers free
Justin Bieber: News Wallpaper
10 most famous people on the
JUSTIN BIEBER WALLPAPERS 2009
Justin bieber wallpaper allbum
justin bieber wallpaper
- 392x618px.
Justin bieber!
justin bieber 2009 wallpaper.
justin bieber 2009 wallpaper.
justin bieber 2009 wallpaper.
Justin Bieber Wallpaper 2009.
DewGuy1999
Feb 28, 08:21 PM
Thank you, Yes my office room here had single pane windows originally. The rest of the house has windows like what is on the outside but they are double pane from when the house was built. For some reason not in here. The house has a lot of history and the windows are beautiful so it would be a shame to take out the originals. They are the very thin glass that you can see the distortion when looking through(I am not sure what to call that). In this room the heat loss was bad but in order to preserve the old glass and original look outside this was a decent option We back up to a river that the american army crossed through during WWII and the last of the bullet holes from the fire fight in the back of the basement were just patched up with the latest renovation work.
I see, so, the inside windows are essentially storm windows. I'm glad to hear that you kept the original windows, too many people think that replacement windows are the only solution to old windows. They're not, there's a reason replacement windows are called "replacement", because you'll be replacing them, probably sooner than later. I don't think the old glass has a name, but most people refer to it as wavy. Thanks for sharing.
I see, so, the inside windows are essentially storm windows. I'm glad to hear that you kept the original windows, too many people think that replacement windows are the only solution to old windows. They're not, there's a reason replacement windows are called "replacement", because you'll be replacing them, probably sooner than later. I don't think the old glass has a name, but most people refer to it as wavy. Thanks for sharing.
tvguru
Aug 7, 05:14 AM
Aussie waiters must earn a fortune. My sister in law worked as a waitress in the USA and earned over US$1000 per weekend in wages and tips. So what's it like in Oz?
I've learnt you don't really tip here. I gave the pizza guy something like $3. He was the happiest man on the face of the earth. (Until he reached the car again I'm sure)
I've learnt you don't really tip here. I gave the pizza guy something like $3. He was the happiest man on the face of the earth. (Until he reached the car again I'm sure)
supermacdesign
Jul 18, 09:50 AM
I hope the rental thing is true--I don't want to own. I'm not with Steve Jobs on this one (assuming the rumors are true that he opposes rentals).
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
This is exactly how I feel about the situation. Renting is the key, and a $1.99 price point is perfect. The movies I purchased for $15 I almost never watch again, I am a sucker for impulse buying. I rent movies now for a buck at RedBox anything more that $2 isn't worth my time when I can have the disc in hand to watch when I want in beautiful DVD quality.
Owning music downloads fits my habits/needs. Owning movie downloads does NOT. The vast majority of movies I watch I never see again. And I don't want to store big movie files long-term. And I don't want to pay a higher price! Lower the price and make it short-term. I like that better.
For the few movies/shows I'd want to own, I want the discs (Blu-Ray preferred :) ) and the ability to take them to a friends' house.
Also, if it's a rental model, I can be more forgiving on quality. They'd have to be better than iPod 320x240 (except, obviously, when played ON an iPod), but if they're a little bit short of DVD quality, I'd still be bored enough to seek instant gratification and rent some. The price would have to be right, of course. Netflix rentals cost about $2.50 each on my plan. For slightly-sub-DVD quality and near-instant delivery, I'd pay maybe $2. For FULL DVD quality I'd certainly be willing to match Netlflix's price, or even pay a little more (for iTunes convenience/speed).
How often would I rent? Depends on selection... which means, probably not often :) At first. But it would be cool to see it grow to a collection that could rival Netflix.
After all, I already do all my movie watching on my Mac (sometimes connected to TV).
This is exactly how I feel about the situation. Renting is the key, and a $1.99 price point is perfect. The movies I purchased for $15 I almost never watch again, I am a sucker for impulse buying. I rent movies now for a buck at RedBox anything more that $2 isn't worth my time when I can have the disc in hand to watch when I want in beautiful DVD quality.
peterjhill
Sep 7, 11:48 AM
Quality is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more important to me, than price.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
Why buy an HD DVD player when you can download the movies at 720P... That would be good enough for me... Of course it depends on how much compression they use to make the file size smaller.. Also, would I be able to stop and resume downloading of the files?
We will find out I guess.
There I said it!
When I see those delicious trailers, I cry for movies like that. Please God make it happen. 720p would be unbelievable, but I would believe it.
Why buy an HD DVD player when you can download the movies at 720P... That would be good enough for me... Of course it depends on how much compression they use to make the file size smaller.. Also, would I be able to stop and resume downloading of the files?
We will find out I guess.
citizenzen
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
Really? How shocking! Imagine, the US European Command, headed by an American! Next you'll be telling us that the US President is an American, too.
It's all rather academic isn't it?
Instead of a military action led by the U.S., it's a military action led by the alliance that's led by the U.S.
It's all rather academic isn't it?
Instead of a military action led by the U.S., it's a military action led by the alliance that's led by the U.S.
pagansoul
Sep 7, 12:51 PM
I'm a collector and I love movies. I can watch something I like 5 times a year and not get tired of it. I must note that my favorite genre is Science Fiction. My DVD collection is in the thousands. I do not watch TV because I can not stand commercials but I have several sets of shows, past and current. I also have about 400 CDs. I have purchased about 10 songs off iTunes but I tend to get the CD if I find I really like the sound. With only 2 of the songs did I decide not to purchase the CD.
Now, iTunes Movie store. For myself I don't see much use. I have downloaded for free some short films that I play on my PSP and keep on my computer. I have ripped (off a DVD) a total of 6 movies (2 are Music Video DVDs) to my iMac just to see how long it would take and the quality. Since I believe I have just about every 'public domain' b-movie made on DVD already and just about everything I want that comes on a DVD I'm not the type of person Apple is gunning for. Right now there are people using P2P for downloading movies that actually think what they are doing is legal. They pay a few bucks to some site that's based in some other country that has different laws. It's these people that iTunes wants and they will pay a few dollars to get a downloaded movie off a creditable site. All iTunes needs to do is offer what those other sites do (a bit more, since it is legal) same speed and as good or better quality.
Side note: If Sony would drop their price for UMDs to a more reasonable price like $5 then I would not need to make my own movie copies to load on my card. All they do is put the full lengh movie on a mini DVD, why charge $25 when a full size DVD is half the price and contains extras. Sorry for the side rant.
Now, iTunes Movie store. For myself I don't see much use. I have downloaded for free some short films that I play on my PSP and keep on my computer. I have ripped (off a DVD) a total of 6 movies (2 are Music Video DVDs) to my iMac just to see how long it would take and the quality. Since I believe I have just about every 'public domain' b-movie made on DVD already and just about everything I want that comes on a DVD I'm not the type of person Apple is gunning for. Right now there are people using P2P for downloading movies that actually think what they are doing is legal. They pay a few bucks to some site that's based in some other country that has different laws. It's these people that iTunes wants and they will pay a few dollars to get a downloaded movie off a creditable site. All iTunes needs to do is offer what those other sites do (a bit more, since it is legal) same speed and as good or better quality.
Side note: If Sony would drop their price for UMDs to a more reasonable price like $5 then I would not need to make my own movie copies to load on my card. All they do is put the full lengh movie on a mini DVD, why charge $25 when a full size DVD is half the price and contains extras. Sorry for the side rant.
applefan289
Mar 24, 01:41 PM
anyone want to guess what we will see in the new imac?
gpus i mean
I would guess there's going to be:
1.) A processor upgrade
2.) Same RAM
3.) Better graphics
4.) Thunderbolt
And to make it an epic upgrade, 5.) would be an all-new design.
gpus i mean
I would guess there's going to be:
1.) A processor upgrade
2.) Same RAM
3.) Better graphics
4.) Thunderbolt
And to make it an epic upgrade, 5.) would be an all-new design.
vanzskater272
Aug 24, 06:33 PM
I cant wait for the new macbook to come out! I am gonna get it the first day.
milo
Jul 20, 10:19 AM
With Netflix, you can't just say, "Let's watch a movie tonight." You have to plan ahead your movie schedule. Netflix will die once iTMS comes alone. It's all about instant instant instant.
With NF you get three movies at a time, and you can get plans with more. It does require a little planning, but right now, the quantity of content you can get in a month for the price can't be beat. If you think it's so stupid, what do you propose as the smarter alternative?
For iTMS to beat it, it would have to match netflix's pricing as well, which would be $1 or less per rental. I don't see that happening. They'd also have to have better quality and include all DVD extras with all movies.
Until then, I'll happily stick with netflix.
With NF you get three movies at a time, and you can get plans with more. It does require a little planning, but right now, the quantity of content you can get in a month for the price can't be beat. If you think it's so stupid, what do you propose as the smarter alternative?
For iTMS to beat it, it would have to match netflix's pricing as well, which would be $1 or less per rental. I don't see that happening. They'd also have to have better quality and include all DVD extras with all movies.
Until then, I'll happily stick with netflix.
Veinticinco
Mar 23, 04:24 AM
they won't ! iPod classic is the best selling for
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
I very much doubt that.
Unless of course you're actually a SVP in Apple Sales and are speaking from a position of authority :rolleyes:
mc68k
Nov 19, 01:16 PM
man i wonder how many watts it runs at full load
http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-pro-and-power-mac/306288/mac-pro-power-supply-wattage/
^ this thread has some diff opinions on the PS wattage, some ppl saying 1KW some saying 1.5KW
http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-pro-and-power-mac/306288/mac-pro-power-supply-wattage/
^ this thread has some diff opinions on the PS wattage, some ppl saying 1KW some saying 1.5KW
FireStar
Oct 14, 03:59 PM
I didn't yet. I'm sort of torn. I keep trying to think why it would be good to have a "backup" case, but I really haven't come up with one, so it'll probably just go back. Just been too busy to do it. But 20 bucks is 20 bucks, I should definitely bring that sucker back.
I agree. I thought the light blue was.... Ugly, I guess. I much prefer the translucent black.
I agree. I thought the light blue was.... Ugly, I guess. I much prefer the translucent black.
Dmac77
Apr 11, 04:32 PM
What if it's not actually an automatic?
Seriously though, I do wonder if people take little things like this (being able to drive a stickshift) and pump up the importance of it, just to get some extremely minor satisfaction out of being "better" than other people.
Also, google "money shift" for the downside of having "full control."
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
-Don
Seriously though, I do wonder if people take little things like this (being able to drive a stickshift) and pump up the importance of it, just to get some extremely minor satisfaction out of being "better" than other people.
Also, google "money shift" for the downside of having "full control."
I don't think people are pumping it up at all. I personally think that people who can't drive a standard transmission, are just lazy (and that goes for my mother, and her habit of doing her makeup while driving). People only get autos, because they don't want to have to "inconvenience" themselves with pushing down on the clutch and throwing the car into the next gear; because doing so requires them to stop shoving food down their face, or to get of the damn phone. I also hate to hear people moan about how inconvenient a standard transmission is during stop and go traffic; I mean it's not that bad, and I recently took my standard transmission accord to chicago and drove in stop and go traffic for over two hours, and it was not as annoying as some would make it out to be. People are just too willing to sacrifice the fun of driving for convenience.
-Don
jrv3034
Jul 18, 08:48 AM
For me, rental is good. I don't want to own a sub-par-quality movie. I'll download it and watch it, and if I want to keep it then I'll buy the DVD.
The downloads should be no more than $1.99 to keep me from walking to Blockbuster. Any higher, and it's just not a good enough deal, what with the low quality, etc.
The downloads should be no more than $1.99 to keep me from walking to Blockbuster. Any higher, and it's just not a good enough deal, what with the low quality, etc.
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 02:22 PM
At the end of the day, I believe this is going to court.
I think the heart of the case will be hinged on proving if "app store" and/or "appstore" was in common use before apple applied for the TM. It does not matter in the least what "app" is short for, or what it means, or who used it for what. Only "appstore" or "app store."
If they were to concede it was unique, but argue that it is NOW generic, I'd think they'd lose, (because Amazon and Microsoft seem to be ones generalizing it.)
Microsoft already made their opposition known in the USPTO's opposition phase for Apple's trademark application. This will go to court sooner than Amazon/Apple does.
I think the heart of the case will be hinged on proving if "app store" and/or "appstore" was in common use before apple applied for the TM. It does not matter in the least what "app" is short for, or what it means, or who used it for what. Only "appstore" or "app store."
If they were to concede it was unique, but argue that it is NOW generic, I'd think they'd lose, (because Amazon and Microsoft seem to be ones generalizing it.)
Microsoft already made their opposition known in the USPTO's opposition phase for Apple's trademark application. This will go to court sooner than Amazon/Apple does.
islanders
Dec 30, 11:25 AM
People would complain about not being able to drive it in hot weather and having to buy expensive Apple iWax.
no it would run on methane gas, would only be able to turn to the left, and you couldn't roll down the windows :eek:
no it would run on methane gas, would only be able to turn to the left, and you couldn't roll down the windows :eek:
nebo1ss
Mar 20, 12:56 PM
I am very uncomfortable with the intervention in Libya. When you look at what is happening in Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia etc. You have to ask the question why Libya. Perhaps its payback time for the PANAM 101.
Not sure I understand the logic of intervention in one conflict but not another. I fear this is going to hurt us in the long term.
Not sure I understand the logic of intervention in one conflict but not another. I fear this is going to hurt us in the long term.
h'biki
Apr 16, 03:21 AM
when marketshare is almost 0 % you are close to dying, look a 1 % of all new machines built is not giving me any confidence in the platform. sure we have 10 % in a installed platform but are loosing everywhere( thank you motorola for holding up the ass end. Fact is Pcs are running away from Mac and when a 500 dollar machine kicks a new $2000 Imac its time to say so long to Jobs and his croonies. Supported you guys way to long at my expense.
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
Layman's version:
When you CEASE TO MAKE A PROFIT then you are dying*. Until then, it doesn't matter what your market share is.
If 1% of the world's population gave me a dollar, I'd be very rich. If 50% of the world's population gave you 1 cent, you'd also be rich, but not as rich as me... even though you have a greater market share. Its all about margins!
For those who are actually interested in understanding the world of business:
*Well, possibly dying... You have to continue to lose money and do it over a period of time before you are dying. Even then, that may be a result of mismanagement, rather than the company itself being dead -- there may still be the potential for money to be made. Really, the only time a company is dead is when its bankrupt and/or when its taken over and its assets stripped (because its been mis-valued).
To give two recent examples. Gateway has been losing money for some time. It has gone from a all time high in 1997 of $61 per share to its current price of around $6 (which it has been at for over the last year). In other words, its been devalued by a magnitude of 10. (They may have refinanced during that time and devalued the price per share, while increasing their overall market value... but I can't remember them doing that. Gateway may have greater marker share, but Apple is valued at around $28 per share. Just to make the comparison properly fair, Gateway has a market value of $1,999 Million, while Apple's market value is around $10,000 million. In other words, Apple is worth ten times as much as Gateway, despite their smaller market share. (Admittely, Apple's share price flucates like crazy, but thats arguably a result of the FUD of uninformed gits, like those at C|Net). Nonetheless, Gateway is likely to be around for some time. Until it continues to burn through money and its share price drops even lower, and it becomes the target of a hostile takeover... which will result in (1) a merger/total buyout/absortion; (2) a massive corporate governance change because the hostile company thinks there's money to be made; and (3) its bought out, its assets stripped and resold.
Example 2 is Media 100. They were also burning through money. Unlike Gateway, however, they weren't generating much gross revenue. Their technology was good, but not that good, and their management was baaad. They weren't generating much gross revenue, which is why no one was really interested in buying them or giving them a loan. They just didn't seem capable of even making a profit (and thats what matters). They were a dying company (unlike Gateway, which is just troubled). So they were forced to file for bankruptcy. Now their assets are being bought by Optibase -- when that deal is complete, they will be dead.
Point is, corporate finance is a very convuluted world. They're like stars. The bigger they are, the longer it usually takes them to die. Sometimes there are corporate "supernovas" (like Enron or HIH or OneTel) in which the whole corporate structure implodes, but thats because of criminal negligence, lack of transparency, and dodgy account practices. (All of which render the mechanisms of the market for corporate control to be rather useless. Noone wants to touch a company when you don't want to know what you're buying).
The most important thing to the world of corporate finance -- the one in which a company lives or dies -- is profit per share, then revenue. Both of which Apple has. Thus it is healthy. Oh, and its debt free. This is a good thing, because it signals to potentially future creditors that it pays off it loans... thus they're likely to bail it out, if it finds itself in trouble again. (Of course, there are mitigating factors there, but thats true of anything).
The only reason that Apple's market share is an issue is because uninformed gits in the IT press (tautology that) scream about it being an issue. This creates information asynchronicity (imnsho) and distorts the market (both the share market and the IT market). Personally I reckon that if people didn't think market share was an issue, Apple would actually be increasing its marketshare. Of course, thats exactly the reason companies like C|NET do scream about it, so it becomes a quasi self-fulfililng prophercy.
Here endeth the lesson on "Introduction to Corporate Financing 101"
mrgreen4242
Sep 6, 10:30 AM
Is it just me, or does the $599 mini *not* let you configure it with a DVD burner?
I came to post the same thing. So you have to pay $150 (price after matching the 80gb HDD) for a SD? Lame. Ya I know you get a faster CPU - put by what, 9%? Big whoop. At least the old mini line up made sense. $200 and you get an extra core, bigger HDD, and a SD... now you get 9%. Bah. If they had dropped the price $100 I would have been all over it.
You can get the 1.66ghz Duo w/ SD and 80gb HDD for $649 refurb still - if it had been $599 I would have jumped, but I'm kinda waiting now. Tell ya' what Apple, give me the 2.0ghz iMac guts in a box, no screen, for $899 EDU ($999 retail) and I'll be the first in line.
I came to post the same thing. So you have to pay $150 (price after matching the 80gb HDD) for a SD? Lame. Ya I know you get a faster CPU - put by what, 9%? Big whoop. At least the old mini line up made sense. $200 and you get an extra core, bigger HDD, and a SD... now you get 9%. Bah. If they had dropped the price $100 I would have been all over it.
You can get the 1.66ghz Duo w/ SD and 80gb HDD for $649 refurb still - if it had been $599 I would have jumped, but I'm kinda waiting now. Tell ya' what Apple, give me the 2.0ghz iMac guts in a box, no screen, for $899 EDU ($999 retail) and I'll be the first in line.