Maria Shriver, in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association, has launched a new campaign against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). But she doesn't want simply to treat AD, she wants to beat AD. And in setting such an ambitious goal, she is invoking the memory of her famous uncle, John F. Kennedy, the greatest goal-setter in modern American history.
It was JFK, of course, who declared in 1962 that America would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade--and we did. To this day, Kennedy's Apollo space program is the gold standard for governmental effectiveness. When people think about the "can do" America that seems to be slipping away, the moon landing comes up as a nostalgic beacon of hope and optimism. So when Shriver declared to Diane Sawyer on ABC News Monday night, "We can launch an expedition on the brain, much like President Kennedy launched an expedition to the moon," she summoned up powerful resonances.
In fact, by taking her beat-is-better-than-treat message to venues ranging from "The View" to "This Week" to Time magazine, Shriver is likely to change the frame of the healthcare debate--that is, change it from its current focus on bean-counting finance to a renewed focus on heroic medicine.
Here's why: After two years of Verdun-like fighting over healthcare policy, both parties will wake up in 2011 to realize that the battle was fought over a relatively minor aspect of the overall topic of medicine: healthcare for the uninsured. We can say that the uninsured were a moral blot on us all, but we can also say that at any given time, the problem of actual illness--our own and that of others--is a greater concern.
AD is a case in point. Currently, 5.3 million Americans suffer from AD, and that number is expected to triple in the next 40 years. The ailment is not only a personal and family tragedy; it is an enormous national expense--$170 billion and rising fast. And that rapid cost-increase will not be affected by the shifting fortunes of partisanship, nor by changing the financing mechanism for AD treatment. To put it bluntly, it doesn't much matter whether AD treatment for tens of millions of American is financed by the government, or by insurance companies, or by personal health savings accounts. If the money has to be spent, it will be spent. American compassion, not to mention AARP, will make sure of that.
Yet Shriver has a different, and better, idea: "bend the curve" on AD costs by curing the malady itself. As she told Sawyer: "We've got to find a cure to this disease, otherwise it will bankrupt every family in this country, and it will bankrupt us as a nation."
Few would disagree, of course, that cure is better than care. Or would they? For decades now, the policy emphasis on Washington has been on "universal coverage," pro and con. But in the multi-decade rumble over national health insurance--by no means over, even after the enactment of Obamacare--both parties have focused so intensely on healthcare finance that they have lost sight of curative medicine itself. Perhaps everyone will be covered--but covered for what? If there's no cure for the disease, coverage doesn't mean much.
Indeed, we spend a mere $500 million a year on AD research--and why, according to the NIH, we have no effective treatment; the anti-AD effort is under-capitalized. Indeed, of the $2.6 trillion that we spend on healthcare in the US, barely more than $100 billion goes to medical R&D.
Once upon a time, political leaders thought differently. Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to cure polio, and so in 1938, he set in motion the March of Dimes. Seventeen years later, we had the Salk Vaccine. The issue back then was obvious: Nobody wanted insurance for polio, they wanted the elimination of polio. OK, that was long ago and far away. Yet even as recently as the 80s and 90s, a joint public-private commitment created treatments for AIDS, making AIDS in the West, at least, a mostly manageable disease.
It's that goal-oriented approach to medicine that Shriver wants to rekindle. Can we do it? The truth is, we have to. We have to reorient ourselves, as a society, toward curing disease, as opposed to paying for disease. Among other considerations, it's cheaper.
Indeed, one can even see the outlines of a future "grand compromise" in Shriver's efforts. That is, we can link a cure for AD--or at least a push-back for its onset--with a raising of the retirement age. That's a deal most senior citizens would get behind.
As we admire Shriver for her determination and vision, we can also note that a cure strategy for AD would be good politics. From left to right, from blue to red, everyone wants to be healthy. And the voters, across the ideological spectrum, stand ready to reward the politicians who help them find a better life and a dignified old age. The pols haven't quite received that message yet, but Maria Shriver will help make sure that they will.
To support a margin compression theory, the article begins by using institutional selling as proof and presents increasing Android market share as an argument. Let’s take a closer look.
1. Institutional Selling
The two examples provided (one institution selling and another expressing worry) are insufficient to support the conclusion that big money has started to dump Apple. What’s happening in the aggregate? Might other institutions have initiated positions or increased their holdings? Unless this table (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=AAPL&selected=AAPL&FormType=Institutional) is out of date (It does include Capital Growth Management’s sale.), there is no significant net change in the number of shares held by institutions.
Now, one could argue that CGM’s Heebner and FEAM’s Obuchowski are such stellar managers that their opinion warrants special attention. Well, Heebner’s CGM Focus fund is only a two-star Morningstar rated fund (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CGMFX+Profile). Heebner “knows how to count”, as the author writes, I suppose, but he doesn’t know how to outperform; Obuchowski’s FEAM50 (http://www.1empiream.com/FEAM50_Q3%2010.pdf) and APA125 (http://www.1empiream.com/apa.htm) funds have beaten their benchmark. However, he’s expressed concern about holding Apple two years from now. He hasn’t sold yet.
The article hence doesn’t provide either quantitative (as the number of shares held has not changed significantly) or qualitative (as no star manager is cited as selling) evidence of big money starting to dump Apple because of margin compression. For the one under performing manager cited for selling, no reason is provided. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence for net institutional selling of Apple, period.
2. Increased Android Market Share
With a 35% profit share in 2009 (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-pro...), the hardware industry's highest, hasn’t Apple been successful in the personal computer market? I would say so, and yet it had only captured a 7% market share. How has it accomplished this feat? By offering something different that consumers value at a premium.
The author writes: “Jobs also (understandably) failed to mention that the “commodity’ Androids materially outperform the iOS products in terms of features and functionality. This is pretty much in direct contravention to the concept of the term “commodity”, isn’t it???? I don’t think many Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X or HTC Evo owners will characterize their devices as “commodities”.”
A product’s characterization as a commodity is not a function of the quality of its features and functionality or user opinions thereof. The Android clones are commodities because there’s fundamentally little difference between them. One might have a bigger screen, another longer battery life, and yet another a thinner form factor, but they all run the same OS and hence offer the same functionality. If an innovative feature proves popular, it can quickly be duplicated. There’s little that sets one phone apart from the other. They are interchangeable. As such, they must compete on price. You might prefer the Galaxy S, but settle for a Droid if its price is sufficiently lower to sway you. Their makers will generate lower profit margins, just like Windows PC makers.
The iPhone, on the other hand, offers something different: superior aesthetics, greater ease of use, no bloatware, superior integration with related products (Mac & iPad), a certain prestige, but mainly a distinct OS. It offers the whole package. Its hardware competitors might best or equal some features, but not the whole. If you value this different product, you can only buy from Apple. By maintaining full control of the iPhone experience, Apple prevents it from becoming a commodity like all the Android clones and, so long as it’s able to produce a superior experience on the whole, ensures premium pricing and high profit margins.
The author also writes: “…its business model may prove unassailable unless Apple makes some drastic changes (ex. allowing cloning)…”
What if Apple did pursue the Google model and licensed its OS? If it allowed iOS clones, it would cannibalize its sales and its margins would be obliterated, as it would lose its main differentiator. Would it be able to keep generating a $238 profit per phone (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-to-view-unit-profitability-vs-volume-in-handsets/)? In light of the fact that Google is giving Android away, it’s highly unlikely.
Android has already won. The battle for market or unit share, that is. Apple will henceforth never sell as many phones. That’s OK because Apple will probably keep generating the lion’s share of profits (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/) by executing a business model proven successful with the Mac.
As it reaches critical mass, Google’s model might indeed become unassailable. No other company will beat Google at its game. Apple has chosen to play a different game that might also be unassailable. They’re two different ways to win. Google will attempt to monetize Android through market share dominance, while Apple will maintain its profit share dominance among hardware makers through innovation and differentiation. Apple’s margins will suffer significantly only if it’s unable to keep offering something different, valued at a premium by consumers.
In short, the article fails to show an institutional dump of Apple shares. It doesn’t even show that the one (marginally competent) institutional manager mentioned for selling did so because of expected margin compression. Moreover, it is misguided in using Android’s unit share dominance to deduce margin compression at Apple. Apple’s profit margin will only suffer significant compression if it fails in the execution of its business model.
To further the analysis, is Google’s licensing model superior to Apple’s integrated model, as many seem to believe? In the personal computer market, Microsoft made money by selling Windows to hardware makers. In the mobile phone market, Google is giving Android away, while planning to monetize market share dominance through services (search and others). The hurdles it faces with this model are not insignificant. Its lack of control over its OS is a liability: witness Verizon’s pre-installation of Bing on some Android phones (http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Bing-Wont-Be-Exclusive-On-All-Android-Phones-110294). Its platform is a customizable OS that hardware makers and wireless carriers can tailor to suit their own ends, which may be to Google’s detriment, and they don’t have to pay for it. Its success is far from assured. Might Google be going back to producing its own branded phone because its current strategy is proving difficult to monetize (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/this-is-the-nexus-s/)?
Apple, on the other hand, is already monetizing the iPhone. As a matter of fact, it made as much money in Q3 2010 as all other phone makers combined (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/), in spite of commanding only 4% market share. Apple won both the unit share and profit share battle in MP3 players with the iPod, as no worthy competitor came forth. This is not the case in smart phones with the emergence of Android. Nonetheless, the Mac, with 35% of PC profit share in spite of only 7% market share, has proven that Apple’s model can thrive even in the face of strong competition.
bench craft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
bench craft company scam Maria Shriver, in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association, has launched a new campaign against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). But she doesn't want simply to treat AD, she wants to beat AD. And in setting such an ambitious goal, she is invoking the memory of her famous uncle, John F. Kennedy, the greatest goal-setter in modern American history.
It was JFK, of course, who declared in 1962 that America would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade--and we did. To this day, Kennedy's Apollo space program is the gold standard for governmental effectiveness. When people think about the "can do" America that seems to be slipping away, the moon landing comes up as a nostalgic beacon of hope and optimism. So when Shriver declared to Diane Sawyer on ABC News Monday night, "We can launch an expedition on the brain, much like President Kennedy launched an expedition to the moon," she summoned up powerful resonances.
In fact, by taking her beat-is-better-than-treat message to venues ranging from "The View" to "This Week" to Time magazine, Shriver is likely to change the frame of the healthcare debate--that is, change it from its current focus on bean-counting finance to a renewed focus on heroic medicine.
Here's why: After two years of Verdun-like fighting over healthcare policy, both parties will wake up in 2011 to realize that the battle was fought over a relatively minor aspect of the overall topic of medicine: healthcare for the uninsured. We can say that the uninsured were a moral blot on us all, but we can also say that at any given time, the problem of actual illness--our own and that of others--is a greater concern.
AD is a case in point. Currently, 5.3 million Americans suffer from AD, and that number is expected to triple in the next 40 years. The ailment is not only a personal and family tragedy; it is an enormous national expense--$170 billion and rising fast. And that rapid cost-increase will not be affected by the shifting fortunes of partisanship, nor by changing the financing mechanism for AD treatment. To put it bluntly, it doesn't much matter whether AD treatment for tens of millions of American is financed by the government, or by insurance companies, or by personal health savings accounts. If the money has to be spent, it will be spent. American compassion, not to mention AARP, will make sure of that.
Yet Shriver has a different, and better, idea: "bend the curve" on AD costs by curing the malady itself. As she told Sawyer: "We've got to find a cure to this disease, otherwise it will bankrupt every family in this country, and it will bankrupt us as a nation."
Few would disagree, of course, that cure is better than care. Or would they? For decades now, the policy emphasis on Washington has been on "universal coverage," pro and con. But in the multi-decade rumble over national health insurance--by no means over, even after the enactment of Obamacare--both parties have focused so intensely on healthcare finance that they have lost sight of curative medicine itself. Perhaps everyone will be covered--but covered for what? If there's no cure for the disease, coverage doesn't mean much.
Indeed, we spend a mere $500 million a year on AD research--and why, according to the NIH, we have no effective treatment; the anti-AD effort is under-capitalized. Indeed, of the $2.6 trillion that we spend on healthcare in the US, barely more than $100 billion goes to medical R&D.
Once upon a time, political leaders thought differently. Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to cure polio, and so in 1938, he set in motion the March of Dimes. Seventeen years later, we had the Salk Vaccine. The issue back then was obvious: Nobody wanted insurance for polio, they wanted the elimination of polio. OK, that was long ago and far away. Yet even as recently as the 80s and 90s, a joint public-private commitment created treatments for AIDS, making AIDS in the West, at least, a mostly manageable disease.
It's that goal-oriented approach to medicine that Shriver wants to rekindle. Can we do it? The truth is, we have to. We have to reorient ourselves, as a society, toward curing disease, as opposed to paying for disease. Among other considerations, it's cheaper.
Indeed, one can even see the outlines of a future "grand compromise" in Shriver's efforts. That is, we can link a cure for AD--or at least a push-back for its onset--with a raising of the retirement age. That's a deal most senior citizens would get behind.
As we admire Shriver for her determination and vision, we can also note that a cure strategy for AD would be good politics. From left to right, from blue to red, everyone wants to be healthy. And the voters, across the ideological spectrum, stand ready to reward the politicians who help them find a better life and a dignified old age. The pols haven't quite received that message yet, but Maria Shriver will help make sure that they will.
To support a margin compression theory, the article begins by using institutional selling as proof and presents increasing Android market share as an argument. Let’s take a closer look.
1. Institutional Selling
The two examples provided (one institution selling and another expressing worry) are insufficient to support the conclusion that big money has started to dump Apple. What’s happening in the aggregate? Might other institutions have initiated positions or increased their holdings? Unless this table (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=AAPL&selected=AAPL&FormType=Institutional) is out of date (It does include Capital Growth Management’s sale.), there is no significant net change in the number of shares held by institutions.
Now, one could argue that CGM’s Heebner and FEAM’s Obuchowski are such stellar managers that their opinion warrants special attention. Well, Heebner’s CGM Focus fund is only a two-star Morningstar rated fund (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CGMFX+Profile). Heebner “knows how to count”, as the author writes, I suppose, but he doesn’t know how to outperform; Obuchowski’s FEAM50 (http://www.1empiream.com/FEAM50_Q3%2010.pdf) and APA125 (http://www.1empiream.com/apa.htm) funds have beaten their benchmark. However, he’s expressed concern about holding Apple two years from now. He hasn’t sold yet.
The article hence doesn’t provide either quantitative (as the number of shares held has not changed significantly) or qualitative (as no star manager is cited as selling) evidence of big money starting to dump Apple because of margin compression. For the one under performing manager cited for selling, no reason is provided. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence for net institutional selling of Apple, period.
2. Increased Android Market Share
With a 35% profit share in 2009 (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-pro...), the hardware industry's highest, hasn’t Apple been successful in the personal computer market? I would say so, and yet it had only captured a 7% market share. How has it accomplished this feat? By offering something different that consumers value at a premium.
The author writes: “Jobs also (understandably) failed to mention that the “commodity’ Androids materially outperform the iOS products in terms of features and functionality. This is pretty much in direct contravention to the concept of the term “commodity”, isn’t it???? I don’t think many Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X or HTC Evo owners will characterize their devices as “commodities”.”
A product’s characterization as a commodity is not a function of the quality of its features and functionality or user opinions thereof. The Android clones are commodities because there’s fundamentally little difference between them. One might have a bigger screen, another longer battery life, and yet another a thinner form factor, but they all run the same OS and hence offer the same functionality. If an innovative feature proves popular, it can quickly be duplicated. There’s little that sets one phone apart from the other. They are interchangeable. As such, they must compete on price. You might prefer the Galaxy S, but settle for a Droid if its price is sufficiently lower to sway you. Their makers will generate lower profit margins, just like Windows PC makers.
The iPhone, on the other hand, offers something different: superior aesthetics, greater ease of use, no bloatware, superior integration with related products (Mac & iPad), a certain prestige, but mainly a distinct OS. It offers the whole package. Its hardware competitors might best or equal some features, but not the whole. If you value this different product, you can only buy from Apple. By maintaining full control of the iPhone experience, Apple prevents it from becoming a commodity like all the Android clones and, so long as it’s able to produce a superior experience on the whole, ensures premium pricing and high profit margins.
The author also writes: “…its business model may prove unassailable unless Apple makes some drastic changes (ex. allowing cloning)…”
What if Apple did pursue the Google model and licensed its OS? If it allowed iOS clones, it would cannibalize its sales and its margins would be obliterated, as it would lose its main differentiator. Would it be able to keep generating a $238 profit per phone (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-to-view-unit-profitability-vs-volume-in-handsets/)? In light of the fact that Google is giving Android away, it’s highly unlikely.
Android has already won. The battle for market or unit share, that is. Apple will henceforth never sell as many phones. That’s OK because Apple will probably keep generating the lion’s share of profits (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/) by executing a business model proven successful with the Mac.
As it reaches critical mass, Google’s model might indeed become unassailable. No other company will beat Google at its game. Apple has chosen to play a different game that might also be unassailable. They’re two different ways to win. Google will attempt to monetize Android through market share dominance, while Apple will maintain its profit share dominance among hardware makers through innovation and differentiation. Apple’s margins will suffer significantly only if it’s unable to keep offering something different, valued at a premium by consumers.
In short, the article fails to show an institutional dump of Apple shares. It doesn’t even show that the one (marginally competent) institutional manager mentioned for selling did so because of expected margin compression. Moreover, it is misguided in using Android’s unit share dominance to deduce margin compression at Apple. Apple’s profit margin will only suffer significant compression if it fails in the execution of its business model.
To further the analysis, is Google’s licensing model superior to Apple’s integrated model, as many seem to believe? In the personal computer market, Microsoft made money by selling Windows to hardware makers. In the mobile phone market, Google is giving Android away, while planning to monetize market share dominance through services (search and others). The hurdles it faces with this model are not insignificant. Its lack of control over its OS is a liability: witness Verizon’s pre-installation of Bing on some Android phones (http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Bing-Wont-Be-Exclusive-On-All-Android-Phones-110294). Its platform is a customizable OS that hardware makers and wireless carriers can tailor to suit their own ends, which may be to Google’s detriment, and they don’t have to pay for it. Its success is far from assured. Might Google be going back to producing its own branded phone because its current strategy is proving difficult to monetize (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/this-is-the-nexus-s/)?
Apple, on the other hand, is already monetizing the iPhone. As a matter of fact, it made as much money in Q3 2010 as all other phone makers combined (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/), in spite of commanding only 4% market share. Apple won both the unit share and profit share battle in MP3 players with the iPod, as no worthy competitor came forth. This is not the case in smart phones with the emergence of Android. Nonetheless, the Mac, with 35% of PC profit share in spite of only 7% market share, has proven that Apple’s model can thrive even in the face of strong competition.
benchcraft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
bench craft company scambenchcraft company scam
bench craft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
bench craft company scam Maria Shriver, in conjunction with the Alzheimer's Association, has launched a new campaign against Alzheimer's Disease (AD). But she doesn't want simply to treat AD, she wants to beat AD. And in setting such an ambitious goal, she is invoking the memory of her famous uncle, John F. Kennedy, the greatest goal-setter in modern American history.
It was JFK, of course, who declared in 1962 that America would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade--and we did. To this day, Kennedy's Apollo space program is the gold standard for governmental effectiveness. When people think about the "can do" America that seems to be slipping away, the moon landing comes up as a nostalgic beacon of hope and optimism. So when Shriver declared to Diane Sawyer on ABC News Monday night, "We can launch an expedition on the brain, much like President Kennedy launched an expedition to the moon," she summoned up powerful resonances.
In fact, by taking her beat-is-better-than-treat message to venues ranging from "The View" to "This Week" to Time magazine, Shriver is likely to change the frame of the healthcare debate--that is, change it from its current focus on bean-counting finance to a renewed focus on heroic medicine.
Here's why: After two years of Verdun-like fighting over healthcare policy, both parties will wake up in 2011 to realize that the battle was fought over a relatively minor aspect of the overall topic of medicine: healthcare for the uninsured. We can say that the uninsured were a moral blot on us all, but we can also say that at any given time, the problem of actual illness--our own and that of others--is a greater concern.
AD is a case in point. Currently, 5.3 million Americans suffer from AD, and that number is expected to triple in the next 40 years. The ailment is not only a personal and family tragedy; it is an enormous national expense--$170 billion and rising fast. And that rapid cost-increase will not be affected by the shifting fortunes of partisanship, nor by changing the financing mechanism for AD treatment. To put it bluntly, it doesn't much matter whether AD treatment for tens of millions of American is financed by the government, or by insurance companies, or by personal health savings accounts. If the money has to be spent, it will be spent. American compassion, not to mention AARP, will make sure of that.
Yet Shriver has a different, and better, idea: "bend the curve" on AD costs by curing the malady itself. As she told Sawyer: "We've got to find a cure to this disease, otherwise it will bankrupt every family in this country, and it will bankrupt us as a nation."
Few would disagree, of course, that cure is better than care. Or would they? For decades now, the policy emphasis on Washington has been on "universal coverage," pro and con. But in the multi-decade rumble over national health insurance--by no means over, even after the enactment of Obamacare--both parties have focused so intensely on healthcare finance that they have lost sight of curative medicine itself. Perhaps everyone will be covered--but covered for what? If there's no cure for the disease, coverage doesn't mean much.
Indeed, we spend a mere $500 million a year on AD research--and why, according to the NIH, we have no effective treatment; the anti-AD effort is under-capitalized. Indeed, of the $2.6 trillion that we spend on healthcare in the US, barely more than $100 billion goes to medical R&D.
Once upon a time, political leaders thought differently. Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to cure polio, and so in 1938, he set in motion the March of Dimes. Seventeen years later, we had the Salk Vaccine. The issue back then was obvious: Nobody wanted insurance for polio, they wanted the elimination of polio. OK, that was long ago and far away. Yet even as recently as the 80s and 90s, a joint public-private commitment created treatments for AIDS, making AIDS in the West, at least, a mostly manageable disease.
It's that goal-oriented approach to medicine that Shriver wants to rekindle. Can we do it? The truth is, we have to. We have to reorient ourselves, as a society, toward curing disease, as opposed to paying for disease. Among other considerations, it's cheaper.
Indeed, one can even see the outlines of a future "grand compromise" in Shriver's efforts. That is, we can link a cure for AD--or at least a push-back for its onset--with a raising of the retirement age. That's a deal most senior citizens would get behind.
As we admire Shriver for her determination and vision, we can also note that a cure strategy for AD would be good politics. From left to right, from blue to red, everyone wants to be healthy. And the voters, across the ideological spectrum, stand ready to reward the politicians who help them find a better life and a dignified old age. The pols haven't quite received that message yet, but Maria Shriver will help make sure that they will.
To support a margin compression theory, the article begins by using institutional selling as proof and presents increasing Android market share as an argument. Let’s take a closer look.
1. Institutional Selling
The two examples provided (one institution selling and another expressing worry) are insufficient to support the conclusion that big money has started to dump Apple. What’s happening in the aggregate? Might other institutions have initiated positions or increased their holdings? Unless this table (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?symbol=AAPL&selected=AAPL&FormType=Institutional) is out of date (It does include Capital Growth Management’s sale.), there is no significant net change in the number of shares held by institutions.
Now, one could argue that CGM’s Heebner and FEAM’s Obuchowski are such stellar managers that their opinion warrants special attention. Well, Heebner’s CGM Focus fund is only a two-star Morningstar rated fund (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=CGMFX+Profile). Heebner “knows how to count”, as the author writes, I suppose, but he doesn’t know how to outperform; Obuchowski’s FEAM50 (http://www.1empiream.com/FEAM50_Q3%2010.pdf) and APA125 (http://www.1empiream.com/apa.htm) funds have beaten their benchmark. However, he’s expressed concern about holding Apple two years from now. He hasn’t sold yet.
The article hence doesn’t provide either quantitative (as the number of shares held has not changed significantly) or qualitative (as no star manager is cited as selling) evidence of big money starting to dump Apple because of margin compression. For the one under performing manager cited for selling, no reason is provided. As a matter of fact, there’s no evidence for net institutional selling of Apple, period.
2. Increased Android Market Share
With a 35% profit share in 2009 (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-revenue-vs-operating-pro...), the hardware industry's highest, hasn’t Apple been successful in the personal computer market? I would say so, and yet it had only captured a 7% market share. How has it accomplished this feat? By offering something different that consumers value at a premium.
The author writes: “Jobs also (understandably) failed to mention that the “commodity’ Androids materially outperform the iOS products in terms of features and functionality. This is pretty much in direct contravention to the concept of the term “commodity”, isn’t it???? I don’t think many Samsung Galaxy S, Droid X or HTC Evo owners will characterize their devices as “commodities”.”
A product’s characterization as a commodity is not a function of the quality of its features and functionality or user opinions thereof. The Android clones are commodities because there’s fundamentally little difference between them. One might have a bigger screen, another longer battery life, and yet another a thinner form factor, but they all run the same OS and hence offer the same functionality. If an innovative feature proves popular, it can quickly be duplicated. There’s little that sets one phone apart from the other. They are interchangeable. As such, they must compete on price. You might prefer the Galaxy S, but settle for a Droid if its price is sufficiently lower to sway you. Their makers will generate lower profit margins, just like Windows PC makers.
The iPhone, on the other hand, offers something different: superior aesthetics, greater ease of use, no bloatware, superior integration with related products (Mac & iPad), a certain prestige, but mainly a distinct OS. It offers the whole package. Its hardware competitors might best or equal some features, but not the whole. If you value this different product, you can only buy from Apple. By maintaining full control of the iPhone experience, Apple prevents it from becoming a commodity like all the Android clones and, so long as it’s able to produce a superior experience on the whole, ensures premium pricing and high profit margins.
The author also writes: “…its business model may prove unassailable unless Apple makes some drastic changes (ex. allowing cloning)…”
What if Apple did pursue the Google model and licensed its OS? If it allowed iOS clones, it would cannibalize its sales and its margins would be obliterated, as it would lose its main differentiator. Would it be able to keep generating a $238 profit per phone (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/31/making-it-up-in-volume-how-to-view-unit-profitability-vs-volume-in-handsets/)? In light of the fact that Google is giving Android away, it’s highly unlikely.
Android has already won. The battle for market or unit share, that is. Apple will henceforth never sell as many phones. That’s OK because Apple will probably keep generating the lion’s share of profits (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/) by executing a business model proven successful with the Mac.
As it reaches critical mass, Google’s model might indeed become unassailable. No other company will beat Google at its game. Apple has chosen to play a different game that might also be unassailable. They’re two different ways to win. Google will attempt to monetize Android through market share dominance, while Apple will maintain its profit share dominance among hardware makers through innovation and differentiation. Apple’s margins will suffer significantly only if it’s unable to keep offering something different, valued at a premium by consumers.
In short, the article fails to show an institutional dump of Apple shares. It doesn’t even show that the one (marginally competent) institutional manager mentioned for selling did so because of expected margin compression. Moreover, it is misguided in using Android’s unit share dominance to deduce margin compression at Apple. Apple’s profit margin will only suffer significant compression if it fails in the execution of its business model.
To further the analysis, is Google’s licensing model superior to Apple’s integrated model, as many seem to believe? In the personal computer market, Microsoft made money by selling Windows to hardware makers. In the mobile phone market, Google is giving Android away, while planning to monetize market share dominance through services (search and others). The hurdles it faces with this model are not insignificant. Its lack of control over its OS is a liability: witness Verizon’s pre-installation of Bing on some Android phones (http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Bing-Wont-Be-Exclusive-On-All-Android-Phones-110294). Its platform is a customizable OS that hardware makers and wireless carriers can tailor to suit their own ends, which may be to Google’s detriment, and they don’t have to pay for it. Its success is far from assured. Might Google be going back to producing its own branded phone because its current strategy is proving difficult to monetize (http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/this-is-the-nexus-s/)?
Apple, on the other hand, is already monetizing the iPhone. As a matter of fact, it made as much money in Q3 2010 as all other phone makers combined (http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/30/last-quarter-apple-gained-4-unit-share-22-sales-value-share-and-48-of-profit-share/), in spite of commanding only 4% market share. Apple won both the unit share and profit share battle in MP3 players with the iPod, as no worthy competitor came forth. This is not the case in smart phones with the emergence of Android. Nonetheless, the Mac, with 35% of PC profit share in spite of only 7% market share, has proven that Apple’s model can thrive even in the face of strong competition.
benchcraft company scam
bench craft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
bench craft company scam
benchcraft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
bench craft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
benchcraft company scamDesign challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
This 'Toy Story' Engagement Ring Box is just too adorable. - It shouldn't be much of a surprise, but Oren Peli has confirmed that 'Paranormal.
The Buffalo News updated every day with news from Buffalo, New York. Links to national and business news, entertainment listings, recipes, sports teams, classified ads, death notices.
how to lose weight fast bench craft company scam bench craft company scam
bench craft company scam
