Negative Margin

(via Instapaper)

MG… totally laughed at that comment feed, yet it was a complete waste of time. A bunch of idiots making extreme statements.

Exhibit B: Apple products are no longer over-priced yet people make this claim.

Stay true. Just say to to comments.

parislemon:

Exhibit A.

parislemon:

Idea for Microsoft: whenever you decide on something brand-related, you should pause — then pick something that’s the exact opposite of your initial thought. 

Also, the bigger problem remains. If the “Superphones” are coming in Q4 2012, they’re going to run headfirst into dozen of Android “Superphones” and likely one big “iSuperPhone” — which is I’m sure what Apple will call it. It just has such a nice ring to it.

Update: As Hunter Walk reminds me, there’s actually a name for my new strategy for Microsoft: The “Costanza”. 

parislemon:

Peter Burrows’ Bloomberg report points out something that’s largely been overlooked the past several months: the opposite approaches that Microsoft and Apple are taking with Android.

Microsoft is aggressively going after Android partners with the intention of forcing them to license Microsoft’s patents. Right or wrong, this effectively destroys the Android “free” proposition. 

But Apple is going after the Android partners to stop them from selling their devices. They’re not interested in licensing their patents. They want these rival devices destroyed. Period.

But given the success Microsoft has had with forcing others to license their patents, what if Apple decides to do the same thing? Kevin Rivette of 3LP Advisors argues that this is the prudent thing to do from a business perspective. 

Steve Jobs clearly didn’t care about that perspective. He wanted Android destroyed because he felt like Google copied most of their Android innovation from Apple. But Tim Cook could alter Apple’s strategy. After all, forcing Android partners to pay both Microsoft and Apple for each device sold may be a huge deterrent for many of them. 

Most speculate that Microsoft is getting about $5 from each Android device sold by partners now licensing their patents. Rivette believes Apple could get $10. The end result would be billion of dollars or, again, Android partners second-guessing going with Android. 

Also, with such deals, Apple could possibly dictate other terms for using the patents (something like: you can only use them 6 months after we do).

A dick move? Very much so. It would also be a big break in strategy by Apple. But Burrows and co. do a good job laying out why it may be inevitable. The patent-based injunctions are temporary at best — rivals figure out little tweaks to work around them. But they spend millions in court in the process, so it may be worth it to them to simply license patents from Apple. This is exactly why Microsoft is getting these royalties. 

At the very least, this is certainly fascinating to think about.

parislemon:

The popular argument nowadays is that the movie business is tanking because the majority of movies suck. But that’s not really true. Sure, many big, Hollywood movies suck. But for each of those, there are a few smaller, independent movies which are great. In fact, as a whole, I might argue that quality is better than it ever has been thanks to technology greatly driving down the cost to make a film. 

As Ebert lays out, the actual problem is with the distribution model. That is, most movie theaters in the U.S. are set up to play only the big ticket items — and again, a good percentage of that is crap. Massive films like Avatar and The Dark Knight disguise this — but only temporarily. This year there wasn’t a film of that magnitude, so we’re seeing it.

Here’s a shocker: the theaters showing actual good movies are doing quite well.

I see a healthy number of movies myself — at least one a week, sometimes two. But I rarely go to the AMCs of the world (in fact, the only time I’ve been to one recently was to see an IMAX). I go to theaters like Sundance which pride themselves on the quality of the experience and the quality of the films they show. You buy a reserved seat and you can buy a drink for the showing. Because it’s a bit more expensive, the audience tends to be better behaved as well. It’s well worth the money.

Ebert has this exactly right and the theater industry would be wise to listen to him. But they won’t. Because next year, we’ll get The Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit and a few other massive films. And they’ll think everything is just fine again. And they’ll keep on thinking that until they go out of business. Which will happen.