Re: GOOGLE - AND/OR Apple Nessy...

News <News@Groups.com> wrote:

> > no, but should have, Google has been dropping like a rock as of late.
> >
>
> Likewise, the AAPL "dot com" has not fallen far from the tree.

apple only has .Mac as the .com portion of their portfolio. and while
all stocks of late have been on a wild ride, google has suffered more
than most anyone.

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> > Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin.
>
> In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.

40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.

> ...
>
> > Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> > weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
>
> The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.

yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
them and has a much more loyal following.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> > Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
> > perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
> > distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
> > that.
>
> yeah, that "worldwide brand identity" that Google is desperately trying
> to achieve. Plucky little company, isn't it? that it just keeps trying.

don't get me wrong, i love google, i was one of its first beta users and
still use it every day and it's my default homepage on 4 of my browsers.

but i've been around long enough to know it's just the popular search
site of the month/year... there will be something better to suppliant it
within a decade... it's the natural course of the web.

ON Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:45:30 -0700, Oxford
<linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> WROTE:

>"Ness Net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>> > Apple can easily outbid Google if needed.
>> >
>>
>> Again - you demonstrate your lack of ANY actual knowledge.
>>
>> Have you actually SEEN Google's market cap?
>
>Ness, so clueless in so many ways. You can't write a check against
>"market cap", you can only do it with liquid assets such as cash.
>
>Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin. From a financial
>perspective Apple has more tangible assets, a fully built out
>distribution system, worldwide brand identity, etc. Google has little of
>that.

When your company name becomes a verb, you have something intangible
that translates to earnings.

Google isn't too shabby in the intellectual property area, either.

Paul

Oxford wrote:
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?


Yes...how many years of experience do you have in five mile plus
distance rural wireless deployments? And one every few years doesn't count.

Oxford wrote:
> do you have any other questions i can help you with?

And another one...If I use a log periodic array antenna cut for 2.4 GHz
which would by LPDA nature be adequate for 5.8 GHz, would my range be
any less at 5.8 GHz?

In article
<linuxlovesosx-B4F6F8.12475318112007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> wrote:

> David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple is wealthier than Google by quite a wide margin.
> >
> > In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> > Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
>
> 40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
> a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.

Except that both companies have more cash than anyone is likely to pay
for what is going to be up for auction. So the real question isn't how
much they have but how much they are willing to offer.

And that's aside from the fact that they can go out on the capital
market and borrow more. The difference between their cash holdings, as
of the figures I quoted, is something like two percent of the market cap
of either firm, so negligable compared to what they could raise if they
wished.

....

> > > Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> > > weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
> >
> > The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> > capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
>
> yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
> etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
> anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
> them and has a much more loyal following.

I'm not sure how long you have been following Apple's stock, but
building products and selling them has its own quite substantial risks,
as its history will demonstrate.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

Oxford <linuxlovesosx@supersmart.com> wrote in news:linuxlovesosx-
A8B123.10291118112007@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net:

> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> that simple.

Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.

David Friedman <ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> > > In terms of cash, about 40% wealthier, comparing Google in March to
> > > Apple currently. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by a wide margin.
> >
> > 40% in terms of a football game or baseball score is a wide margin. for
> > a loan, it's the difference of yes or no.
>
> Except that both companies have more cash than anyone is likely to pay
> for what is going to be up for auction. So the real question isn't how
> much they have but how much they are willing to offer.

true...

> And that's aside from the fact that they can go out on the capital
> market and borrow more. The difference between their cash holdings, as
> of the figures I quoted, is something like two percent of the market cap
> of either firm, so negligable compared to what they could raise if they
> wished.

and also true...

> ...
>
> > > > Banks don't look kindly on such ".com" bubbles, so Google is in a much
> > > > weaker position than Apple to bid on the upcoming spectrum sale.
> > >
> > > The price of Google's stock provides evidence of their ability to raise
> > > capital--they could, after all, issue some more of it.
> >
> > yes, but banks will also look at Yahoo, Excite, pets.com, eToys.com,
> > etc. there is far more risk with Google than Apple since Google isn't
> > anything more than a web site, Apple actually builds products, sells
> > them and has a much more loyal following.
>
> I'm not sure how long you have been following Apple's stock, but
> building products and selling them has its own quite substantial risks,
> as its history will demonstrate.

i've followed it since 1980, so the entire time. apple does well with
steve at the helm, not so when he is gone. apple had a couple rough
years in the mid-90's, but that was because of steve being gone and poor
management. nothing relating to apple in general.

In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,

> > why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> > that simple.
>
> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.

that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:

The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
weep!

-

Gadgets
Apple iPhone

Cellphone 2.0

While other phone makers piled on half-baked features, Apple rethought
the way we interact with mobile devices. The iPhone puts an end to
confusing menus, whether you¹re flipping through album covers by swiping
a finger or turning the phone sideways to get a wider view of a Web page.

It starts with the 3.5-inch capacitive touchscreen, the first on a
cellphone that can recognize simultaneous touches, for tricks like
zooming in on a photo by spreading your fingers apart. A grid of sensors
behind the glass detects‹with great accuracy‹where your finger disrupts
the electrical field above it, so you can tap the correct link even on a
Web page that¹s littered with them.

The iPhone is also the best iPod ever, with a built-in YouTube
interface, movie player and iTunes downloads. For anything else you want
it to do, it runs third-party Web applications, and‹as long as hackers
stay ahead of Apple‹unofficial programs like games and instant
messaging. The competition looks downright primitive.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html

Oxford wrote:
> David <spammers@kissmyass.com> wrote:
>
> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
> that simple.
>
> for some reason you and others are scared of what I have to say. i know
> why, but *****ing about it won't make the iPhone go away.

I think you have a very over inflated idea about yourself. No one is
"scared" of you. And frankly you make a fool of yourself by posting
fanboi dribble that you don't even understand.

>
> i'll post what I want, where I want, when I want. this is USENET, it's
> the spirit of this decentralized, discussion system.
>
> if you don't like it, leave.

Thats fine but "Oxford" simply has no credibility.

DTC wrote:
> Oxford wrote:
>> do you have any other questions i can help you with?
>
> And another one...If I use a log periodic array antenna cut for 2.4 GHz
> which would by LPDA nature be adequate for 5.8 GHz, would my range be
> any less at 5.8 GHz?

Hmmm...no answer yet. Google may be experiencing some issues.

Oxford wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> you don't have to get nasty about it. I'm a helpful person filled with
>>> exciting news about the future of the cell industry.
>> So much so that you don't see that you are just a total fanboi who
>> exists solely to troll and post stuff you don't even understand.
>
> not sure about fanboy, i'm just an advocate of quality products. if
> nokia or LG come up with something, i'll be there.

No, you meet the definition of a fanboi. You read marketing speak that
is intended as bait for fanbois. Then you decide to post it in groups
where it is not wanted like it is the news of the century without even
knowing it is BS.

I will give you a free clue. You may think you are posting exciting
"news" but most people are already on overload and annoyed by BS
marketing speak.


>
> i deeply understand all that i post, but for some reason, you don't so
> you get mad instead of rising up to my level.
>
> -
I am not mad but I can understand why you might be. You posted something
you didn't understand and totally discredited yourself.

Oxford wrote:
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html

Written for the lowest common denominator, like you...not for a real
professional.

Go back for the past fifty years and see how PopSci's revelation of new
technologies are downright funny. Like steam powered airliner.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/3290931.html

"They give dumbed-down explanations of simple technologies which leads
me to believe that perhaps they don't actually understand how it really
works."

In news:linuxlovesosx-ADAB2F.18171418112007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net,
Oxford <linuxlovesosx@superart.com> typed:
> In article <Xns99ECAB0C93BD5spammerskissmyasscom@140.99.99.13 0>,
>
>>> why so bitter david? if you don't like facts, don't read my posts. it's
>>> that simple.
>>
>> Here's the problem...your post contained absolutely zero facts.
>
> that's just your "opinion", but here is another fact:
>
> The iPhone has just won the top Award from Popular Science, read it and
> weep!
>
> -
>
> Gadgets
> Apple iPhone
>
> Cellphone 2.0
>
>>>SNIP<<<
>
> http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_46.html



On the same page they also had an award for the following:

Verizon Wireless V CAST Mobile TV

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bo...s/item_54.html