[an]

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU ZNGA.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]As long as AAPL has a product that the mobile’s customers want, they’ll keep paying. Did APPL make pretty sweet deals with them? Absolutely. One of the reasons they are among the biggest companies in the world is that they drive the hardest bargains. They are notoriously difficult with both vendors and customers alike. That won’t change. But the mobiles are making money selling iPhones. Unless other manufactures make a device that consumers want more than they want the iPhone, that dynamic is unlikely to change. (disclosure here, I’ve never had an iPhone, nor any other Apple product.)[/quote]
Like flu said, Samsung. Apple sells 26M iPhone. Samsung sells 19M GS3 alone. They have a lot more phones than just the GS3. In total, they sell over 2X the amount of iPhone. Also keep in mind that the GS3 just came out. So the market penetration is nothing like iPhone 4S. Also keep in mind that Samsung churn out phones a lot more quickly than Apple does. So their product is always fresh.

WRT to AAPL’s market share, it’s the growth expectation that gives it the market share it currently command. It doesn’t have the most profit or the largest revenue. If earning growth decline, which it did, investors will take a pause and reevaluate. AAPL have been enjoying the market that have very little good competition to its products. However, going forward, the competition is definitely heating up. Which causes uncertainty about continual earning growth.

I personally think this is the beginning of the end of Apple’s dominance. Android is doing a fine job declaring its dominance. We’ll see how Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 does over the next couple of years but competitions is definitely good for consumer but not good for Apple.

[an]

[quote=no_such_reality]LOL, and what percentage of the general population considers it gimped?

What percentage would know what to do with a non-gimped phone? I hear a Nigerian Prince has an ungimped phone, he’s willing to ship it to you, just wire him $50 okay?[/quote]
You fail to see that he thinks the general population are rock dumb stupid.

[an]

The small fry investors will not only have to deal with low supply but it seems like demand is increasing: http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/24/wall-street-foreclosures/?iid=HP_LN

[an]

According to this link: http://www.rsfteam.com/about-rsf.asp & http://www.rsfteam.com/about-rsf.asp?id=2, it doesn’t seem like FBR was ever part of the covenant. More RSF map: http://www.ranchosantafenow.com/rancho-santa-fe-map.php

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]Uhh, Fairbanks shares the same CC&R’s as RSF. Any Piggs correct me here if I am in error.[/quote]
Here’s the map from their website: http://www.rsfassociation.org/pages/map.html.

More info about RSF, Fairbanks, Covenant, etc: http://piggington.com/rsf_kicking_out_fairbanks_ranch_cielo_crosby_bridges_whispering_

[an]

Flu, keep in mind that in 2005, you don’t need to have a down payment. However, friend b did have down payment. He just chose to hold off. He end up buying a few years and many low ball offers later.

[an]

I did hear about them. Their rate is not as good as absolute mortgage. From quick glance, it doesn’t look like they do negative point either (i.e. they don’t credit you back for the negative point). I’m actually in the process of refi-ing again with Sheldon and he was able to almost match absolute mortgage. I still went with Sheldon even though he can’t exactly match absolute mortgage is because I read quite a few bad review of absolute mortgage online and I had a few transactions with Sheldon and they all have been smooth. So, I’m willing to pay a few hundred to not have that head-ache dealing with unknown online loan person. For pure rate though, absolute mortgage have the lowest rate I’ve seen so far.

[an]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=AN][quote=flu]AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. Hind sight is always 20/20. The pay difference is only 5-10%, so the decision to not jump around doesn’t affect him as much as his decision to buy the house. So, even if guy A didn’t jump around like guy B, if guy A just listen to guy B’s reason why he doesn’t want to buy a house in 2005, he would have been much better off. One decision alone, not the most popular decision in 2005, would have put guy A in a much better financial situation. This bad luck (2005 RE crash) affected everyone who own a house, so it’s not like guy B was in the right place at the right time.[/quote]

Can’t win if you don’t play.

Not moving is basically not playing.

So unless you’re really aggressive about moving around in a large company, then not moving companies is basically a guaranteed non-winner.

Winners make their own luck.[/quote]
Totally agree. This is why friend B jumps around why friend A doesn’t. Friend B jumping around, hoping the company he’s jumping to will take off and take him along for the ride. It didn’t work out like those who jump to Google, but at least friend B still end up getting paid 5-10% more than friend A for about a decade. So, from now on, every raise they both get will increase the gap between friend A and friend B.

In flu’s example of the friend who was forced to stay at QCOM, luck was on his side and QCOM end up taking off. For every friend like that, I know a few who stay and the company end up going out of business or just flounder and they go no where. So, sometimes staying doesn’t always mean guaranteed non-winner. But majority of the time, people move because they see a company they’re at is on the decline and the company they’re going to is on the accent. They take that risk to move. Sometimes it pays off and sometime it doesn’t.

[an]

[quote=flu]Don’t get me wrong… I’m as much against the entire robinhood wealth redistribution for many reasons. But perhaps for different reasons.

I agree that in a lot of causes, wealth is acquired as a result of some luck…But redistributing wealth randomly to others is a big problem in this country…

Because I think at least most definitely in this country, many many people have demonstrated that they can’t handle money even if someone gives it to them…In fact, quite the opposite…They end up getting deeper into debt because they end up figuring out a way to spend more than they have anyway.

A lot of the problems in our country has nothing to do with being born poor…I see a lot of people that are in their predicament because they spend too much, and they haven’t learned shit about the value of money..This is the only country that I find that you have folks in the poorest/lowest performing school districts…And they’re talking about having classrooms filled with iPads….CarmelV doesn’t even do that… This is the only country that I see in which folks who claim they are poor still carry around a smartphone with a $50/month bill….

I’m not rich, but definitely not poor…And I don’t even have a data plan for my personal cell phone because I think it’s too expensive…. (I have a data plan for a phone that is a complete work expense because it’s to test smartphone development…But even before I got involved in a smartphone development, I never had data plan or any)…..

In fact, I would say a majority of the people that just rail “on the rich” do so out of anger, jealousy than any other reason and like to come up with any excuse on why they think it’s “unfair”….But if you peel back the layers, I’m sure a lot of these people they’ve had their fair share of why their in the predicament that they are in…

It starts with education (at the anti-atitude toward it), it starts with spending values (the lack thereof), and it starts with learning to live with less (which clearly, americans suck at)… If someone in has demonstrated those things, and still are shit out of luck, then yeah I can understand….

But really, if I see someone that goofs off in school, someone that rails against geeks/nerds and pisses away opporunityy, someone that spends beyond their means for bling, some that “majors” in non-payable degree and on top of that takes out student loans up the ying yang to do so, and then cries foul about how unfair it is that others make more money…and talks about wealth redistribution, I can’t help roll my eyes.

A lot of people (in this country) fail out of laziness and self-pity and pride…versus because they failed after trying. I have tremendous respect for people in the latter category. I have no respect for people in the former category…And I think what people don’t understand is that most people in the latter category would seldomly be crying about how unfair things are.. More or less setback after setback they would keep trying….Those are the people that deserve “help”…not the former..

That’s the biggest issue why I’m against all this big talk about general wealth redistribution. A lot of folks don’t want to take a “good risk”, but a lot of folks make decisions out of bling that are dangerously risky…….

So when some folks see others take “good risk” (those to better oneself), they tell them what a bad idea it is, and how stupid they are…It happens all the time….And if those risk takers fail, “those” people are the first ones that love to rub their fingers at other people’s noses…And if the risk takers are lucky, and it works out…”those” people get all bent out of shape…they cry foul and unfair…Think that wealth accumulation through speculation should be taxed up the ying yang because it’s not “valued” as much as manual labor….Yeah, I have a problem with that.

I really don’t mind piss-ants that rail and tell me how stupid a decision is…..If fact, I think I kinda count on it……Because I’m already know piss-ants are going to rub their noses and tell me how dumb I am if things go bad…So I’m already use to it…I try my hardest to prove how dumb wrong they are.[/quote]
+1. My feeling exactly.

[an]

[quote=flu]AN.. For some people, moving around companies works out for them. For other people it doesn’t. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. Hind sight is always 20/20. The pay difference is only 5-10%, so the decision to not jump around doesn’t affect him as much as his decision to buy the house. So, even if guy A didn’t jump around like guy B, if guy A just listen to guy B’s reason why he doesn’t want to buy a house in 2005, he would have been much better off. One decision alone, not the most popular decision in 2005, would have put guy A in a much better financial situation. This bad luck (2005 RE crash) affected everyone who own a house, so it’s not like guy B was in the right place at the right time.

[quote=flu]Your friend B could have easily wound himself in the same predicament if he happened to pick the companies that sucked and was marred by a few layoffs and setbacks during his job switching days..[/quote]
I totally agree with this too. According to my friend B, he jumped because company 1 wasn’t doing well. Then there was sign company 2 doesn’t much growth either, so he jumped. There was signs company 3 last lost its growth and he jump to company 4. When company 4 start to go South, he went to company 5. He told me it was definitely stress during the jumping period, but with hindsight being 20/20, friend B end up getting paid more than friend A. Friend A stayed at company 1, then jump to company 4 when friend B pulled him over. Now, friend B is trying to pull friend A to company 5, which is doing very well and compensating much better than company 4.

Of course, I hear stories just like you too. A friend of a friend was employee 20 at QCOM. He jumped to a start up with a larger title, I think VP, and because he was being burnt out at QCOM. This friend of a friend told my friend that was the worse decision he has made. If he stayed put, he would probably be a VP of some sort at QCOM and have 10s if not 100s of millions by now. So, jumping sometimes doesn’t work. But sometimes it does. There’s no guarantee.

[an]

flu, wrt my example, what luck does guy B have that guy A doesn’t have. Guy A can easily move to as many companies as guy B does and get probably paid the same amount. Secondly, guy A can easily listen to guy B and not buy his house in 2005. Just those two things alone would have brought the two guys to parity.

WRT to your story, yes, that’s luck (bad/good). But at the same time, why didn’t guy A jump to different companies or departments well before the $hit hit the fan. Guy A in your story could have jump to company N or M or the many companies other startup in the bay. Then guy A can jump back to company Q a few years later. In my eye, guy A was being complacent and got hit with a string of bad luck. But guy A can be a little more proactive at the same time.

BTW, those new employees in company Q are fresh grads or with just a couple of years of experience, so, it’s not surprising that they’re renting in city M until they acquire enough down payment.

[an]

[quote=davelj]Let me give you a specific example: There’s a guy that runs a boutique investment bank in NYC that’s been incredibly successful – worth well over $100 million. In an interview he recently said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I was a very average investment banker in the ’70s but I was in the right place at the right time in the right sector with the right group of partners. There was nothing that really distinguished us but we got lucky on a few deals and it was off to the races. I seriously doubt I could replicate what I’ve done if I were starting out today – it’s a different world.”[/quote]
Here’s one specific example that say randomness is not 100% of the equation: There are 2 friends, both graduated as software engineers right after the .com crash from the same school with similar grades. Both started out at the same company. Guy A worked at 2 companies over the last 12 years and bought his house in 2005. He asked guy B if he wants to buy that house with him. Guy B declined and gave him reasons why he thinks the market is a bubble and will probably crash. Guy A bought anyways. Now, with guy B, he moved to 5 different companies over the same 12 years. Now, guy B makes more than guy A. Also, since guy B didn’t buy in 2005, he was able to buy a bigger house in 2009 for less than what guy A bought his house in 2005. Also, he was able to pick up an investment property in 2011 as well as looking to pick up another investment property. All the while, guy A is trying to do a loan mod on his house. The net worth between the two are pretty drastically different for two guys who start out basically at the same place with the same amount of smartness. Both guys were dealt with the same .com crash, the same RE bubble and the same RE crash. So, in essence, both got dealt with the same good and bad luck. But guy B made some good decision that allow him to be in a better spot wrt to net worth. BTW, over that same 12 years, guy B have worked at every companies guy A worked at. It’s just that guy B jump around a few other companies in between guy A’s 1st and 2nd company transition. That allow guy B to get paid higher than guy A at his 2nd company.

[an]

[quote=davelj]What’s ironic is that Bill Gates and his father are interviewed extensively in the book “The Self-Made Myth”… and they both disagree with you. They find it existentially absurd the wealth that Bill Gates has been able to amass through Microsoft and see “collective fingerprints” and pure “good luck” everywhere in his success.

To be clear, I agree that all of your so-called “problem solvers” would be very successful in most different times and places… the issue is the absolute and relative DEGREE of their success. There are MANY hard-working, indefatigable, brilliant problem solvers out there… only a teeny tiny fraction of them become billionaires. What’s the difference between them? Randomness.[/quote]
Also to be clear, I agree with you that randomness and luck does have some play in it. What separate the billionaires and the millionaires entrepreneur is luck and being at the right place at the right time. My point is, if Bill Gates wasn’t bestowed with that luck, that luck might have been bestowed on someone else. The luck of being at the right place at the right time, the luck of being born super smart, the luck of being born with the gene that drive them to be entrepreneurs, etc. All of those are luck. I agree with you that a teeny tiny fraction of the hard-working, indefatigable, brilliant problem solvers out there are billionaires.

Again, back to your original question of where would I think these internet billionaires would be if there was no internet. Assume they have the same luck, just no internet, I think they would be exactly where they are. But obviously, this is all “what if”, so there’s really no right or wrong answer. If you want to take a step further back and say, what if Thomas Edison didn’t invent the first electric utility and the light bulb, would we have the ARPANET and what we know today as the internet or even the computer. Lets take a step further back than that and say, if that one caveman didn’t discover/invent fire, would we be where we are today?

[an]

CAR, I’m not going to quote your long post, but you’re trying to pick a fight where a fight doesn’t exist. davelj ask where would these internet billionaires would be if there’s no internet. My answer was they probably will be exactly where they are. Look at sdr’s post. That’s my point exactly. These guys are wired differently.

You might not like Zuckerberg, but what problem did he solve? How about the problem of people being able to connect with each other and see what others are doing in an easy to use interface. There’s a reason why there are hundreds of millions of people using it. It might not be your problem but people would be using his service if it doesn’t enhance their lives in some way.

However, that’s really beside the point. Look at the forest instead of the tree. These are brilliant guys (I said brilliant and not just smart). If the internet doesn’t exist, they’ll find some other problem that need solving. Again, my point is, Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates, Jobs, etc are the same type of guys like Ford, Edison, etc. Ford and Edison didn’t come up with the light bulb and the car because of government spending. You’re assuming guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Gates and Jobs will just sit and twittle their thumbs if government doesn’t exist. There might not be the internet or Windows/OSX/iOS/Android as we know it today, but they won’t be any different than who they are. Which is problem solvers and entrepreneurs.

Yes, Apple and Microsoft both benefited from Xerox PARC. They were the inventor of the mouse and GUI. But Xerox was going to just shelf that technology. W/out Gates and Jobs, we would probably never gotten Windows/OSX/iOS/etc. Xerox at the time had to plan to commercializing it. So, because they were going to just canned the project, both Apple and Microsoft took it for free and Xerox doesn’t mind. I know about public spending in PARC, DARPA, NASA, etc. and I never said they’re not helpful. But you fail to grasp my original point, which is, these type of guys will be just like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, etc. and go solve some problem at their time, with or without government spending.

WRT to public grant, facilities, etc., where do you think the government get their money to provide these grant and facilities? Without private corporations to pay the taxes, without private corporation to hire and pay their employees who end up paying more taxes, where would the government get their money from? It’s a symbiotic relationship. I never suggest government have no role in what we have today. Just go back and read my original point and try to see the forest from the trees.

[Author]

Posts