| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Gates Goes From Geek to Chic | |
|
||
| Time: 15:00 EST/20:00 GMT | News Source: Wired | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Psst ? Bill Gates! Your inner geek is showing. Or perhaps that's actually your inner Steve Jobs? Granted, Microsoft chairman and chief software architect Gates doesn't have quite the crazed charisma of Apple's CEO Jobs. But the new prototype computer Gates was fondling in front of hundreds of hardware developers on Tuesday looked so much like a Mac that it was impossible not to draw comparisons between the two men and their machines. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:40:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 5/7/2003 3:36:19 PM |
| Now I see what passes for "NEWS" around here |
| #2 By 1896 (208.61.157.221) at 5/7/2003 3:44:00 PM |
| "De gustibus non disputandum est" but I don' t see what is Jobs' charisma. His histrionic cup de teatre' whenever he reveals new Apple products can't hide the failure of the company business model. Good for him that his salary is not following the same pattern of the company balance sheet. |
| #3 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 5/7/2003 4:53:26 PM |
|
A budy of mine has a poster of all the Wired covers up until a couple ago.
It's pretty sad, actually. They've had like 12 covers with Bill Gates proclaiming the death of Microsoft, or the "New Microsoft Killer", etc, etc. Over and over again.... it's so hilarious. How hard they try, though.... |
| #4 By 1896 (208.61.157.221) at 5/7/2003 8:27:02 PM |
|
#5
Business model: "A description of the operations of a business including the components of the business, the functions of the business, and the revenues and expenses that the business generates." Ad majora. |
| #5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/7/2003 8:59:49 PM |
|
That's a lame diversion, Fritz.
You are talking about a company over 25 years old, worth 6.4 billion dollar, with revenue over 6 billion a year, with income of a few hundred million per year, with 25 million users, 4.5 billion in cash, 500 million R&D budget, and has seen the likes of Digital, Compaq, NEC, Gateway, and many others come and go... So again, how is it an unsuccessful model? And by the way, the balance sheet has remained solid for the last three years. Are you confusing Apple with Gateway or something? If you'd like to continue to avoid the question directed at your flaim bait, maybe you could at least honor us with your description of what Apple's business model is. Please? That should be humorous. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 21:02. |
| #6 By 1868 (141.133.155.28) at 5/7/2003 10:04:25 PM |
|
Flaim bait? Soda, care to share with us what Flaim is? What kinda of fish do you catch with that? ;) This post was edited by Zeo01 on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 22:05. |
| #7 By 1868 (141.133.155.28) at 5/7/2003 10:04:36 PM |
|
error This post was edited by Zeo01 on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 22:04. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/7/2003 10:26:05 PM |
|
I'm soda... he's jerky boy
I predict Apple will go bankrupt by the year 2150. |
| #9 By 1896 (208.61.157.221) at 5/7/2003 10:49:38 PM |
|
Sodajerk please keep up with your tradition, you can do better.
What Apple business model is? Ask Mr. Job to explain it to you, he is the company CEO I am just an investor. Hewlett Packard, Microsoft etc. are still around, aren't they? Why it is an unsuccesful model? Here it is: $10,000 invested in Apple stock on May 6 1993 would be worth $6,567.44 today; -34.33. Financial results for the first quarter 2003 ended December 28, 2002: net loss of $8 million, or $.02 per share. Now compare these results to the ones for one year-ago quarter: a net profit of $38 million, or $.11 per diluted share. I hope you are not an Apple stock-holder This post was edited by Fritzly on Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 22:51. |
| #10 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 5/8/2003 12:25:00 AM |
|
#11
May 6 1993: Apple = $53.75 MS = $87.25 May 6 2003: Apple = $17.50 MS = $26.37 Therefore, Apple = -67.44% drop MS = -69.77% drop You can't define whether a business model is successful or not on the share price alone. |
| #11 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 12:57:21 AM |
|
Your research is pathetic, Kabuki. OK, perhaps that was harsh. Perhaps you really didn't know that stocks can split and the thought to check for that never occurred to you.
Since May 1993 MSFT has split 2/1 in Dec '96, again 2/1 in Feb '98, again 2/1 Mar '03. (ref http://investor.cnet.com/investor/ipocenter/splits-single-company/0-9920-1102-0-MSFT.html?tag=fasq) So, if you bought 1 share of MSFT for 87.25 in May '93, you would have 1x2x2x2 or 8 shares of MSFT for 26.37 each today. In total that means you'd have $210.96 worth of stock when you invested $87.25. That seems to me to be about 240% of the original purchase price. Since May 1993 AAPL has split 2/1 in Jun '00. (ref http://investor.cnet.com/investor/ipocenter/splits-single-company/0-9920-1102-0-AAPL.html?tag=fasq) So, if you bought 1 share of AAPL for 53.75 in May '93, you would have 1x2 or 2 shares of AAPL for 17.50 each today. In total that means you'd have $35 worth of stock when you invested 53.75. That seems to me to be a decrease like you said, though not near as severe as you said. I felt the need to correct you, since your posts generally annoy me. Now that I have corrected your data, though, I do agree with the intent of your post. Stock price alone does not necessarily reflect the performance of a company. It does, however, reflect investor confidence. Clearly investors have far more confidence in Microsoft's business model than they do in Apple's. Or at least they seem to have more confidence in Microsoft's stock appreciating. As an adendum, it is entirely possible that there have been spin-offs or tracking stocks which were not included in my extremely brief research the result of which would skew my results. This post was edited by BobSmith on Thursday, May 08, 2003 at 00:57. |
| #12 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 5/8/2003 4:06:17 AM |
|
#13 Sorry for not including the splits. Although going to the links provided by you there was 4 splits for Microsoft since May '93 as there was a 2-1 split in May '94, so 16 shares per original share. So Microsoft have been an even better investment, which does makes sense, the figure did seems wrong when I was typing it in - but doesn't matter now. My original point now without the supporting evidence was that share price alone does not determine whether a company has a successful business model or not.
A better example would have been AMD. In May 1993 shares were at $28.75, and there has only been one split since. On 6th May 2003 shares closed at $7.64 meaning you lost about half of your money, but AMD seem to be doing very well against Intel. "since your posts generally annoy me" I'm glad the feeling is mutual - I'm constantly amazed at the level of your blind zealotry when it comes to Microsoft. In future feel free not to read them given that you are so sensitive to reading something even mildly critical of Microsoft. Let me guess, here you will come out and declare that I'm an Apple zealot or maybe a Linuz zealot, not even close, I'm just not a MS zealot. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 4:41:57 AM |
|
Blind zealotry? LMAO! Read my posts a little more closely. I attack foolishness no matter the source. Perhaps you haven't been visiting the site long enough to know that I've attacked the arguments of several on this site who are commonly held as zealots including sodablue, mooresa, macrosslover, and parker.
I've also had reasonable conversations (though flame wars are far more likely) with several commonly held as ABMers including sodajerk, JWM, and gg. Personally, I don't consider myself a zealot. A few years back it was my goal in life to own the company that ran Microsoft into the ground. At that time it might have been accurate to call me a zealot albeit an anti-Microsoft zealot. I was extremely peeved by their practices and the quality of their software in earlier times. As time has gone by I've switched to a nearly all Microsoft platform. First I switched OSes, then Office suites, then browsers, then development tools (IMO Visual J++ 6.0 kicked JBuilder's booty), then IM clients, and finally media players. I moved from Java development to Windows DNA (Visual Studio 6 based) then .NET (Visual Studio .NET based) development. My opinions and actions are based on using competing products and services and preferring Microsoft's offerings. I fought tooth and nail to hate Internet Explorer (I still remember fighting with myself about it), but there was just no comparing any other browser offering (I compared about 5 - Mosaic, Lynx, NeoPlanet, Netscape, HotJava) to Internet Explorer 5. The latest Mozilla offerings are improving, but Internet Explorer 6 is still superior IMO. Enough about browsers... The point is that I'm tired of fools spouting foolish things. I'd like to learn what else is out there. I'd like to learn if I have misunderstood or overlooked something in my evaluation of Microsoft and their competitors. I don't take kindly to people attacking my statements (or anyone's for that matter) with FUD, non research, lies, or deception. I seriously consider any serious and intelligent statement even if it attacks my current position. In my opinion the only way I can learn is if I am willing to accept that I believe things that aren't true. I will not, however, reject my current ideas for foolish lies and FUD. Having said all of that, when I read your posts, I see bitterness, lack of logic (or at the very least lack of research) and FUD. I'm not sure that I have once seen you objectively approach a Microsoft offering. If you only state what they do poorly, you are in effect being deceptive in your statements, since you do not also state what they do well. Finally, thank you for the correction on the 4th stock split. I didn't notice it when I scanned the page. |
| #14 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 5/8/2003 4:43:47 AM |
| On second glance, I agree with what I said earlier, I was too harsh. I'm so used to your negative comments that I, perhaps, read too much into your statement. I apologize for my defaming comments against you with respect to that post (#13). |
| #15 By 12071 (203.217.69.70) at 5/8/2003 7:23:55 AM |
|
#15, #16 "If you only state what they do poorly, you are in effect being deceptive in your statements, since you do not also state what they do well."
You're right, I don't come on here and make statements about what Microsoft do well. Not because I don't think they do things well but because there's so many people on here like the ones you mentioned plus a few others that there's no need for me to make yet another "oooh wow" comment. I'd rather read objective or at least semi-objective comments about the topic at hand rather than 30 or so "oooh wow" comments. The only way to achieve that is to comment on the negative aspects but that of course puts you as a target of the "you said something nasty about MS therefore you must be a Linux zealot" people. I choose the latter. As for what Microsoft does right, as a developer, I am very impressed with Visual Studio. I've used it since v4, tried Borland's C++ Builder, but always stuck with Visual Studio for all my C++ development. There's always something that you can fault in Visual Studio but quite honestly it's a fantastic IDE. SQL Server is a great product and so is Windows Media. There's probably quite a few other products that I think are quite good (e.g. MS Project for small to mid sized projects) that I can't think of at the moment. So I don't HATE Microsoft software, I'm just not blind to non-Microsoft software. |
| #16 By 2960 (156.80.64.196) at 5/8/2003 9:01:06 AM |
|
"Why it is an unsuccesful model? Here it is:
$10,000 invested in Apple stock on May 6 1993 would be worth $6,567.44 today; -34.33. " Did you figure in the splits that occured? Where is your data from? TL |
| #17 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/8/2003 1:27:28 PM |
|
Hmm, we go from this: "A description of the operations of a business including the components of the business, the functions of the business, and the revenues and expenses that the business generates." To: "A business model is how much growth generated in the stock price over time." I guess any "value" stock is an unsuccessful business model then?
Whatever. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 165 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:40:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
