Android now #2 - iPhone now #3

In article <acb9b226-2149-4685-af1e-fad28f8f5031
@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...


>
> Ask HTC how "free" Android is. They've already agreed to pay license
> fee to Microsoft for each phone sold.


If HTC is paying license fees to Microsoft, they're morons, because

(a) Android is open-source, and
(b) Android was created by Google.

Now, with open-source software, you can pay for add-ons and support,
like you do with Red Hat Linux vs. Fedora. With Red Hat, some of the
add-ons might even be proprietary. But the base software is still open-
source.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
[email protected]

---

› See More: Android now #2 - iPhone now #3

In article <[email protected]>, John Slade
<[email protected]> wrote:

> DOS was basically a loader for Windows after Win 95,
> however it was Microsoft's OS.

doesn't matter what it is. microsoft switched to windows.

> Apple jumped from one to the
> other and the one Apple developed was dumped for one based on UNIX.

they didn't jump at all. classic mac os existed from 1984 to 2002 when
it was 'buried.' os x came out in 2001 and has now replaced it.

> That article is for US SALES ONLY and it was from 2008. I'm
> talking about the worldwide base of computers. Apple is about 5%.

like i said, it all depends how you count it.

if you look at revenue market share, it's even higher, much, much
higher.

> But to Apple's credit, OS X market share was about 3% a
> few years ago.

so you finally admit it's increasing.

> > nonsense. very few people buy a mac only to run windows. it eases the
> > transition.
>
> Well I would love to see some numbers to back this up.

look at sales of mac software. for adobe creative suite, they sell
about half to mac, half to pc, which is awful high for just 5% of the
market.

> But
> clearly Apple realized that they can make money from selling to
> people who want to run Windows. If they didn't feel that way,
> Boot Camp would not exist.

if they thought that, they'd *include* windows. being able to dual boot
(which is a pain, actually) is more of a safety net than normal use.

> Market cap is NOT net income.

didn't say it was, however, it shows that apple is bigger than hp.

> HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
> to revenue.

but not market cap. go look at what apple's stock has been doing for
the last few years.

In article <[email protected]>, Steve Sobol
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > Ask HTC how "free" Android is. They've already agreed to pay license
> > fee to Microsoft for each phone sold.
>
> If HTC is paying license fees to Microsoft, they're morons, because
>
> (a) Android is open-source, and
> (b) Android was created by Google.

(c) patent infringement

<http://www.techflash.com/seattle/201...ach_patent_dea
l_over_google_android_devices.html>

The Redmond company says mobile-phone maker HTC will pay Microsoft an
undisclosed sum to license a series of patents that, according to
Microsoft, cover technology in HTC mobile phones that use Google's
Android operating system.

On May 16, 7:06*pm, John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/16/2010 12:15 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > In article<[email protected]>, John Slade
> > <[email protected]> *wrote:
>
> >> * * * No. Their OSes have been failures.
>
> > nonsense.
>
> >> * * * The OS they first
> >> developed was dumped and they finally gave up and moved to UNIX
> >> with OS X.
>
> > kinda like microsoft dumped dos, you mean? that first os lasted from
> > 1984 to 2002 or so.
>
> * * * * DOS was basically a loader for Windows after Win 95,
> however it was Microsoft's OS. Apple jumped from one to the
> other and the one Apple developed was dumped for one based on UNIX.
>
>
>
> >> Basically they created a hybrid kernel and a GUI.
> >> Apple used to have more market share in the 80s and it dropped
> >> until it gained a couple of percentage points over the last five
> >> years. Basically it's never going to reach 10% of the market.
>
> > <http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic...corral_14_of_U.
> > S._computer_market>
>
> > * *Computerworld - Apple Inc.'s continued retail success translatedinto
> > * *a boost in its share of the U.S. computer market to 14% last month,
> > * *up from 9% in the same month last year, a research firm said today.
>
> * * *That article is for US SALES ONLY and it was from 2008. I'm
> talking about the worldwide base of computers. Apple is about 5%.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-growing-faste...
>
> * * * *But to Apple's credit, OS X market share was about 3% a
> few years ago.
>
>
>
> >> So Apple wanted to make sure Mac users had something to fall back
> >> on when they realize there isn't much fun to be had with OS X,
> >> thus, they came out with Boot Camp to help you install Windows
> >> on the clones they make now.
>
> > nonsense. very few people buy a mac only to run windows. it eases the
> > transition.
>
> * * *Well I would love to see some numbers to back this up. But
> clearly Apple realized that they can make money from selling to
> people who want to run Windows. If they didn't feel that way,
> Boot Camp would not exist.
>
> >>> I think Dell, Toshiba, Lenova, and even HP
> >>> would love to make the kind of money that the Mac generates.
>
> >> * * * * But HP makes more money than Apple.
>
> > <http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2009/07/29/apple-dell-hp/>
>
> > * *Not only is Apple's market capitalization ($143.3 billion) more than
> > * *five times Dell's ($27.3 billion), but as Roughly Drafted's Daniel
> > * *Eran Dilger points out, it is now bigger than Dell's (DELL) and
> > * *Hewlett-Packard's (HPQ) combined.
>
> * * * Market cap is NOT net income. Net income is how much money
> a company makes in a year.
>
> HP made $9.4 billion in FY 2009.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Packard
>
> Apple made $8.2 billion in FY 2009.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc
>
> * * *HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
> to revenue.
>
> John

So now we're using Wikipedia as a source? Let's try a more official
source.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:HPQ&fstype=ii

Wikipedia is wrong (wow, I'm shocked).

The $9.145 Billion was not the "net income". It was the Net income
*before tax*. HPQ's net income last year was $7.666 Billion

Now Wikipedia did quote Apple's net income correctly....

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii

It was $8.235 billion.

Apple's net income *before tax* was $12.066 Billion. So either way,
Apple's net income was greater than HP's last year. How many times
must I keep reposting this?

In article <[email protected]>,
Justin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Snit wrote on [Sun, 16 May 2010 09:55:59 -0700]:

> > But Rick just looks at purchase price and is blind to the rest -
> > one of the reasons he likes Linux, in the very short term it is
> > less expensive for him.
>
> Ummm, Linux makes machines long past "old" usable for years later.
> You can pickup a $100 machine and use it for YEARS with Linux, and
> not really feel it being "slow"

This was a much more compelling benefit in the days when new machines
were $2000 items. They're mostly not anymore.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

On May 16, 7:06*pm, John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:

> * * * Market cap is NOT net income. Net income is how much money
> a company makes in a year.
>
> HP made $9.4 billion in FY 2009.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Packard
>
> Apple made $8.2 billion in FY 2009.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc
>

So now we're using Wikipedia as an authoritave source?

Well, John, Wikipedia is wrong (shocking I know). Let's use a
slightly better source.....

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:HPQ&fstype=ii

HPQ's net income for FY 2009 was $7.660 Billion. The number that you
got from Wikipedia (chuckle) of $9.4 Billion was net income *before
taxes*.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii

Wikipedia did get Apple's net income of $8.235 billion correct.
Apple's net income *before taxes* was $12.0355 Billion.

Say it with me John $8.235 billion is greater than $7.660 billion.




> * * *HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
> to revenue.
>

There is so much wrong with that sentence, I don't know where to
start.

But let's try this if I have large revenues from selling 1 dollar
bills for 95 cents, would I be a successful businessman?

> John

ZnU stated in post [email protected] on
5/16/10 5:58 PM:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Snit wrote on [Sun, 16 May 2010 09:55:59 -0700]:
>
>>> But Rick just looks at purchase price and is blind to the rest -
>>> one of the reasons he likes Linux, in the very short term it is
>>> less expensive for him.
>>
>> Ummm, Linux makes machines long past "old" usable for years later.
>> You can pickup a $100 machine and use it for YEARS with Linux, and
>> not really feel it being "slow"
>
> This was a much more compelling benefit in the days when new machines
> were $2000 items. They're mostly not anymore.

Have you looked at the price of a decently equipped iMac these days?

Of course, you can do a *lot* more with the iMac than with the Linux machine
and do it a lot easier.


--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On 5/16/2010 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>, John Slade
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> DOS was basically a loader for Windows after Win 95,
>> however it was Microsoft's OS.
>
> doesn't matter what it is. microsoft switched to windows.
>
>> Apple jumped from one to the
>> other and the one Apple developed was dumped for one based on UNIX.
>
> they didn't jump at all. classic mac os existed from 1984 to 2002 when
> it was 'buried.' os x came out in 2001 and has now replaced it.
>
>> That article is for US SALES ONLY and it was from 2008. I'm
>> talking about the worldwide base of computers. Apple is about 5%.
>
> like i said, it all depends how you count it.
>
> if you look at revenue market share, it's even higher, much, much
> higher.
>
>> But to Apple's credit, OS X market share was about 3% a
>> few years ago.
>
> so you finally admit it's increasing.
>
>>> nonsense. very few people buy a mac only to run windows. it eases the
>>> transition.
>>
>> Well I would love to see some numbers to back this up.
>
> look at sales of mac software. for adobe creative suite, they sell
> about half to mac, half to pc, which is awful high for just 5% of the
> market.
>
>> But
>> clearly Apple realized that they can make money from selling to
>> people who want to run Windows. If they didn't feel that way,
>> Boot Camp would not exist.
>
> if they thought that, they'd *include* windows. being able to dual boot
> (which is a pain, actually) is more of a safety net than normal use.
>
>> Market cap is NOT net income.
>
> didn't say it was, however, it shows that apple is bigger than hp.

You said Apple makes more money than HP and they don't. But
one day Apple will probably pass HP. This is because Apple is
into making mobile devices and selling music.



>
>> HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
>> to revenue.
>
> but not market cap. go look at what apple's stock has been doing for
> the last few years.

Market cap is great info for investors and such but it's
not actual money being made. Market cap is used to determine
stock price among other things.

John

In article <[email protected]>, John Slade
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But one day Apple will probably pass HP. This is because Apple is
> into making mobile devices and selling music.

hp just bought palm, so obviously they have plans for mobile devices
too.

a lot of companies have plans for mobile devices. that *is* the future.

On 5/16/2010 6:04 PM, KDT wrote:
> On May 16, 7:06 pm, John Slade<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Market cap is NOT net income. Net income is how much money
>> a company makes in a year.
>>
>> HP made $9.4 billion in FY 2009.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Packard
>>
>> Apple made $8.2 billion in FY 2009.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc
>>
>
> So now we're using Wikipedia as an authoritave source?
>
> Well, John, Wikipedia is wrong (shocking I know). Let's use a
> slightly better source.....
>
> http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:HPQ&fstype=ii
>
> HPQ's net income for FY 2009 was $7.660 Billion. The number that you
> got from Wikipedia (chuckle) of $9.4 Billion was net income *before
> taxes*.
>
> http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii
>
> Wikipedia did get Apple's net income of $8.235 billion correct.
> Apple's net income *before taxes* was $12.0355 Billion.
>
> Say it with me John $8.235 billion is greater than $7.660 billion.

OK you're right Apple made more than HP last year but
not by that much of a margin. But HP still makes more money
selling computers than Apple does.

>
>
>
>
>> HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
>> to revenue.
>>
>
> There is so much wrong with that sentence, I don't know where to
> start.
>
> But let's try this if I have large revenues from selling 1 dollar
> bills for 95 cents, would I be a successful businessman?
>

Revenue is how much a company is actually worth in cold
hard numbers. It's how much money the company has in the bank.

Let me explain it to you like this. If I sell ten
computers and make $50 on each I would have $500. However if I
sell 1000 computers and make $2 on each, I would have $2000. Now
If I keep doing that for decades, the company making $2 on each
computer will be worth much more than the company making $50 on
each. You got it now? Good, glad I could help you with that.

John


>> John
>

On May 16, 11:11*pm, John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/16/2010 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article<[email protected]>, John Slade
> > <[email protected]> *wrote:
>
> >> * * * * *DOS was basically a loader for Windows after Win 95,
> >> however it was Microsoft's OS.
>
> > doesn't matter what it is. microsoft switched to windows.
>
> >> Apple jumped from one to the
> >> other and the one Apple developed was dumped for one based on UNIX.
>
> > they didn't jump at all. classic mac os existed from 1984 to 2002 when
> > it was 'buried.' os x came out in 2001 and has now replaced it.
>
> >> * * * That article is for US SALES ONLY and it was from 2008. I'm
> >> talking about the worldwide base of computers. Apple is about 5%.
>
> > like i said, it all depends how you count it.
>
> > if you look at revenue market share, it's even higher, much, much
> > higher.
>
> >> * * * * But to Apple's credit, OS X market share was about 3% a
> >> few years ago.
>
> > so you finally admit it's increasing.
>
> >>> nonsense. very few people buy a mac only to run windows. it eases the
> >>> transition.
>
> >> * * * Well I would love to see some numbers to back this up.
>
> > look at sales of mac software. for adobe creative suite, they sell
> > about half to mac, half to pc, which is awful high for just 5% of the
> > market.
>
> >> * But
> >> clearly Apple realized that they can make money from selling to
> >> people who want to run Windows. If they didn't feel that way,
> >> Boot Camp would not exist.
>
> > if they thought that, they'd *include* windows. being able to dual boot
> > (which is a pain, actually) is more of a safety net than normal use.
>
> >> * * * *Market cap is NOT net income.
>
> > didn't say it was, however, it shows that apple is bigger than hp.
>
> * * *You said Apple makes more money than HP and they don't. But
> one day Apple will probably pass HP. This is because Apple is
> into making mobile devices and selling music.
>
>
>
> >> * * * HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
> >> to revenue.
>
> > but not market cap. go look at what apple's stock has been doing for
> > the last few years.
>
> * * *Market cap is great info for investors and such but it's
> not actual money being made. Market cap is used to determine
> stock price among other things.
>
> John

Yeah, but financial statement do show the money being made -- and
Apple made more last year.

On May 16, 11:37*pm, KDT <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 16, 11:11*pm, John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/16/2010 5:33 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > > In article<[email protected]>, John Slade
> > > <[email protected]> *wrote:
>
> > >> * * * * *DOS was basically a loader for Windows after Win 95,
> > >> however it was Microsoft's OS.
>
> > > doesn't matter what it is. microsoft switched to windows.
>
> > >> Apple jumped from one to the
> > >> other and the one Apple developed was dumped for one based on UNIX.
>
> > > they didn't jump at all. classic mac os existed from 1984 to 2002 when
> > > it was 'buried.' os x came out in 2001 and has now replaced it.
>
> > >> * * * That article is for US SALES ONLY and it was from 2008. I'm
> > >> talking about the worldwide base of computers. Apple is about 5%.
>
> > > like i said, it all depends how you count it.
>
> > > if you look at revenue market share, it's even higher, much, much
> > > higher.
>
> > >> * * * * But to Apple's credit, OS X market share was about 3% a
> > >> few years ago.
>
> > > so you finally admit it's increasing.
>
> > >>> nonsense. very few people buy a mac only to run windows. it eases the
> > >>> transition.
>
> > >> * * * Well I would love to see some numbers to back this up.
>
> > > look at sales of mac software. for adobe creative suite, they sell
> > > about half to mac, half to pc, which is awful high for just 5% of the
> > > market.
>
> > >> * But
> > >> clearly Apple realized that they can make money from selling to
> > >> people who want to run Windows. If they didn't feel that way,
> > >> Boot Camp would not exist.
>
> > > if they thought that, they'd *include* windows. being able to dual boot
> > > (which is a pain, actually) is more of a safety net than normal use.
>
> > >> * * * *Market cap is NOT net income.
>
> > > didn't say it was, however, it shows that apple is bigger than hp.
>
> > * * *You said Apple makes more money than HP and they don't. But
> > one day Apple will probably pass HP. This is because Apple is
> > into making mobile devices and selling music.
>
> > >> * * * HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
> > >> to revenue.
>
> > > but not market cap. go look at what apple's stock has been doing for
> > > the last few years.
>
> > * * *Market cap is great info for investors and such but it's
> > not actual money being made. Market cap is used to determine
> > stock price among other things.
>
> > John
>
> Yeah, but financial statement do show the money being made -- and
> Apple made more last year.

This benefits the end user how? Now MSFT's utter dominance of the OS
market benefits me and that everything comes out for Windows first and
maybe someday if they get around to it.... maybe the Mac will get it.
This includes both hardware and software.

On May 16, 11:34*pm, John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/16/2010 6:04 PM, KDT wrote:
> >> HP made $9.4 billion in FY 2009.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Packard
>
> >> Apple made $8.2 billion in FY 2009.
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc
>
> > So now we're using Wikipedia as an authoritave source?
>
> > Well, John, Wikipedia is wrong (shocking I know). *Let's use a
> > slightly better source.....
>
> >http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:HPQ&fstype=ii
>
> > HPQ's net income for FY 2009 was $7.660 Billion. *The number that you
> > got from Wikipedia (chuckle) of $9.4 Billion was net income *before
> > taxes*.
>
> >http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii
>
> > Wikipedia did get Apple's net income of $8.235 billion correct.
> > Apple's net income *before taxes* was $12.0355 Billion.
>
> > Say it with me John $8.235 billion is greater than $7.660 billion.
>
> * * * * OK you're right Apple made more than HP last year but
> not by that much of a margin. But HP still makes more money
> selling computers than Apple does.

While HP could have made more on computers than Apple, HP didn't make
that much on computers...

http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/05/02...nal-computing/

"Despite their premier position, HP isn’t making much PC money: $500M,
5% Operating Profit. (The full HP Q1 report in PDF can be found
here.)"

Apple had a revenue of $13.409 Billion and a profit of $3.074 Billion
last quarter, about a 30% of that came from Mac Sales -- about $4.1
Billion in revenue. If we assume that Apple has anything more than
14% margins on Macs, then Apple could have made more than HP. If you
assume too much less, then Macs aren't as "overpriced" as you claim.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...es-from-2010-4









> > But let's try this if I have large revenues from selling 1 dollar
> > bills for 95 cents, would I be a successful businessman?
>
> * * * * *Revenue is how much a company is actually worth in cold
> hard numbers. It's how much money the company has in the bank.
>

Revenue is not "how much money the company has in the bank". Have you
actually *read* a financial statement? The amount of money a company
"has in the bank" is on their balance sheet. It's called "Cash and
Cash Equivalents". Again, going to our good friend http://finance.google.com....

HPQ - $17.268 Billion
AAPL - $23.155 Billion

Even that is a simplistic view. You still have to take into account
total debt, other assets, the value of intellectual property, etc.

Revenue is how much the company made *before* expenses.

Going by my example above, which company is more successful -- one
that had a revenue of $1 billion but expenses of $1.10 Billion or one
that had revenue of $500 Million and expenses of $300 million?

> * * * * Let me explain it to you like this. If I sell ten
> computers and make $50 on each I would have $500. However if I
> sell 1000 computers and make $2 on each, I would have $2000. Now
> If I keep doing that for decades, the company making $2 on each
> computer will be worth much more than the company making $50 on
> each. You got it now? Good, glad I could help you with that.


But that's not what's happening. Apple is consistently making a
larger net income than HP or did you not actually see the financial
statements?

In article <[email protected]>,
John Slade <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 5/16/2010 6:04 PM, KDT wrote:
> > On May 16, 7:06 pm, John Slade<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Market cap is NOT net income. Net income is how much money
> >> a company makes in a year.
> >>
> >> HP made $9.4 billion in FY 2009.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett_Packard
> >>
> >> Apple made $8.2 billion in FY 2009.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_inc
> >>
> >
> > So now we're using Wikipedia as an authoritave source?
> >
> > Well, John, Wikipedia is wrong (shocking I know). Let's use a
> > slightly better source.....
> >
> > http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:HPQ&fstype=ii
> >
> > HPQ's net income for FY 2009 was $7.660 Billion. The number that you
> > got from Wikipedia (chuckle) of $9.4 Billion was net income *before
> > taxes*.
> >
> > http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:AAPL&fstype=ii
> >
> > Wikipedia did get Apple's net income of $8.235 billion correct.
> > Apple's net income *before taxes* was $12.0355 Billion.
> >
> > Say it with me John $8.235 billion is greater than $7.660 billion.
>
> OK you're right Apple made more than HP last year but
> not by that much of a margin. But HP still makes more money
> selling computers than Apple does.

Apple doesn't break out income from computer sales, but based on their
total profit last quarter and the fraction of their revenue that the Mac
makes up, they almost certainly *did* make more than HP on laptops +
desktops. Probably in the neighborhood of twice as much, in fact.

> >> HP is worth about three times what Apple is when it comes
> >> to revenue.
> >>
> >
> > There is so much wrong with that sentence, I don't know where to
> > start.
> >
> > But let's try this if I have large revenues from selling 1 dollar
> > bills for 95 cents, would I be a successful businessman?
> >
>
> Revenue is how much a company is actually worth in cold
> hard numbers.

No, it's not. Are you saying that a buyer should be willing to pay the
same amount for a company that has $1B in revenue and makes $100M in
profit as for a company that has $1B in revenue and makes $300M in
profit?

> It's how much money the company has in the bank.

Is there any limit to the depth of your ignorance?

> Let me explain it to you like this. If I sell ten computers and make
> $50 on each I would have $500. However if I sell 1000 computers and
> make $2 on each, I would have $2000. Now If I keep doing that for
> decades, the company making $2 on each computer will be worth much
> more than the company making $50 on each. You got it now? Good, glad
> I could help you with that.

Great. But your numbers are entirely made up. More realistically, HP is
selling 3-4x as many computers as Apple, but with an average sale price
and with profit margins that are less than half of Apple's. Do the math
on that.

--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes

nospam wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > But Linux is free. So it is, to Rick, better. And the only reason
>> > Linux does not rule the world is because of MS.
>>
>> Huh, I use linux items every day, from my wifi router, to my TiVo to
>> servers at work.
>
> linux is great for embedded devices, not the desktop.

Maybe, but at least it is better than windows and OSX.

So, until something better than linux comes along...
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.