So, I've been running Parallels for Mac for a few weeks now, and I'm kind of amazed at how well it works and ready to ditch it at the same time. On the one hand, it enables me to do pretty much everything I need to do in Windows running under OSX. On the other hand, it does some of that stuff really damn slowly, and doesn't do a couple of things at all.
Things Parallels does well:
Normal Windows use for normal Windows users
Medium-level Office use under Windows
Things Parallels does damn slowly or poorly:
Disk operations involving local windows volumes
Disk operations involving USB or Firewire drives (under Windows, that is)
Mount as writeable some NTFS volumes
Attach to some networked printers
Things Parallels doesn't do at all:
Access the older snap server we have on our LAN
Allow you to successfully install Delphi 7
Allow you to use Direct X versions above 9
Allow you to update your Sun Java under Windows
As you can see, there are some issues. One of the most confusing issues was I could sometimes write certain NTFS volumes, then the next time I attached to them, I had only read access (under OSX, under XP it was fine). It was a little bewildering, but I suspect it's permissions getting reset by XP on the volume. As to access speeds on local Windows volumes, that's probably the single biggest issue. I haven't actually measured, but write speeds are at BEST 5x slower than they would be natively, and often more like 20x slower. It's not a big issue for the average user, perhaps, but I have several 50+GB files I move around, and it sometimes takes days to move one under Parallels. That's just not workable.
I always kind of knew in the back of my mind that Parallels might be great for the OSX user who occasionally needs a Windows app, but it certainly isn't for people who spend the majority of their time in Windows. My experiences over the last few weeks has shown that to be true. Virtualization is pretty amazing, but it's not native execution after all. It's a damn shame too, as I really like OSX better than Windows, but I've gotta live in the real world, and the world I work in uses Windows.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Random Tidbit: Salt-water combustion
If this is not a hoax, it's an incredible discovery. Perhaps not so much for cars, as is discussed, but for larger generators. I'd think the energy density present might not make it practical for mobile applications. I mean, how much salt water would a car have to haul around?
Apple Watch: iPhone sales details
So, Gene Munster, who you may or may not know is the most wildly optimistic Apple analyst in the world, has estimated some numbers on iPhone sales pre and post-price cut, as reported by Business 2.0:
"By Munster's reckoning, Apple and AT&T (T) were selling an average of 9,000 iPhones a day before the price reduction, which would have put their quarterly sales at 594,000 as of Sept. 5. The two companies had already sold 270,000 phones in the previous quarter. To reach 1 million by Sept. 9, they would have had to sell 136,000 more phones, or 27,000 a day -- a 300% increase.
The new rate, Munster writes in a report to clients issued yesterday, "clearly represents an initial surge that is not sustainable." He estimates that sales will stabilize at a 50% increase.
By the end of the quarter, he believes, Apple will have sold a total 1.28 million iPhones."
I hope he's right. I sold my APVAG calls yesterday, though I still hold APVDJ calls and, of course, a lot of straight AAPL shares. It's not that I expect Apple to be lower in January than they are now (APVAG is an AAPL $135 Jan 08 call). It's just that I feel AAPL will decline in the next 2 weeks before they start appreciating going into the earnings report, so I anticipate buying calls again in the next week or two.
"By Munster's reckoning, Apple and AT&T (T) were selling an average of 9,000 iPhones a day before the price reduction, which would have put their quarterly sales at 594,000 as of Sept. 5. The two companies had already sold 270,000 phones in the previous quarter. To reach 1 million by Sept. 9, they would have had to sell 136,000 more phones, or 27,000 a day -- a 300% increase.
The new rate, Munster writes in a report to clients issued yesterday, "clearly represents an initial surge that is not sustainable." He estimates that sales will stabilize at a 50% increase.
By the end of the quarter, he believes, Apple will have sold a total 1.28 million iPhones."
I hope he's right. I sold my APVAG calls yesterday, though I still hold APVDJ calls and, of course, a lot of straight AAPL shares. It's not that I expect Apple to be lower in January than they are now (APVAG is an AAPL $135 Jan 08 call). It's just that I feel AAPL will decline in the next 2 weeks before they start appreciating going into the earnings report, so I anticipate buying calls again in the next week or two.
Monday, September 10, 2007
AT&T Shure i2c-m earbuds for the iPhone (and Shure e2c)
So, moving slightly away from Apple stock talk, I wanted to share a little something I discovered the other day. I've long had a pair of Shure e2c earbuds which I love, but on a recent flight to Iceland (more on that later), I found the standard clear sleeves that came with them were really uncomfortable for 10 hours at a go. Flash forward 2 weeks.
I finally broke down and bought a set of the i2c-m earbuds, which are Shure i2c earbuds oem'd for AT&T and sold in AT&T stores. I bought them because Apple made a horrible decision and for some reason I can't begin to fathom, decided to recess the headphone port on the iPhone so you can't use the majority of existing headphones with it. So, wanting good headphones that worked with the iPhone AND had a mic for making calls, I broke down and bought the i2c-m. Well, they don't come with the clear sleeves of the e2c; they come with black sleeves which are FAR more pliable and irritate your ear canals much less than the clear variety. I also verified that the black sleeves fit fine on the e2c's, and what's more, they seal far better than the clear sleeves, making the either set of buds sound much better than they do with the clear sleeves.
I know I'm going on and on about it, but if you have the clear sleeves, and they're not comfortable, or you don't get head-filling sound out of your e2c's, you need the black sleeves in question. Just go down one size from your clear sleeves (if they're not comfortable); it's unreal the difference it makes. And the best part? They're on Amazon and they're cheap!
I finally broke down and bought a set of the i2c-m earbuds, which are Shure i2c earbuds oem'd for AT&T and sold in AT&T stores. I bought them because Apple made a horrible decision and for some reason I can't begin to fathom, decided to recess the headphone port on the iPhone so you can't use the majority of existing headphones with it. So, wanting good headphones that worked with the iPhone AND had a mic for making calls, I broke down and bought the i2c-m. Well, they don't come with the clear sleeves of the e2c; they come with black sleeves which are FAR more pliable and irritate your ear canals much less than the clear variety. I also verified that the black sleeves fit fine on the e2c's, and what's more, they seal far better than the clear sleeves, making the either set of buds sound much better than they do with the clear sleeves.
I know I'm going on and on about it, but if you have the clear sleeves, and they're not comfortable, or you don't get head-filling sound out of your e2c's, you need the black sleeves in question. Just go down one size from your clear sleeves (if they're not comfortable); it's unreal the difference it makes. And the best part? They're on Amazon and they're cheap!
Apple Watch: Apple sells 1 millionth iPhone
So, Apple announced this morning that they'd sold their 1 millionth iPhone on Sunday (yesterday). That's 3 weeks ahead of their estimate, which said they'd sell 1 million by the end of September. That's an average of 13,700 phones a day for 73 days...not bad. Now the questions are:
What's really going on in Europe?
What phone is going to Europe?
How big was the sales bounce since the price drop?
Secretive Apple, of course, isn't going to tell us much until they're good and ready.
What's really going on in Europe?
What phone is going to Europe?
How big was the sales bounce since the price drop?
Secretive Apple, of course, isn't going to tell us much until they're good and ready.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Apple Watch: Sept 5th Announcements
I find it interesting that the vast majority of the journalists, analysts and pundits view the price reduction for the iPhone which was just announced as a "panicky" move responding to weak iPhone sales. They also see the $100 rebate to previous buyers as a negative. I see these things another way.
Before the iPhone was released, there was widespread concern among Apple investors that the iPhone would cannibalize nano sales in particular, if not iPod sales overall. Knowing this was a possiblity, Apple moved to prevent the phone from eating into iPod sales the only way they could; by pricing it high enough that it didn't compete directly with their other products. But don't take my word for it: estimates from iSuppli indicate that there was approximately $300 in profit in each iPhone at launch; an unheard of margin, even for Apple. There is only one explanation for why Apple priced the phone so dearly initially; preservation of sales for their established products.
Apple then, on September 5th, completed a transformation of the entire iPod line around the iPhone. The nanos dropped in price and gained video capabilities. The touch was released without the phone components but with additional capacity over the iPhone. The Classic was released at double its previous capacity, and Apple was finally free to price the iPhone where they originally would have had they not been concerned about losing iPod sales. The complete iPod line, including the iPhone, fits together cohesively. It's almost as if Apple planned it that way.
And what about that $100? That $100 is probably going to cost Apple very little in the end. As has been noted by gizmodo, among others, there's not much you can buy for $100 in an Apple store. Earbuds? iLife '08? a shuffle? A lot of the people are going to use that $100 and buy bigger ticket items, and it's going to be pure gravy for Apple. I wouldn't be suprised if, after all is said and done, that $100 ends up costing Apple something closer to $15 per person, on average. IF they've sold 1 million iPhones, that's $15 million..but remember that they got $300 in profit out of each sale. $300 million in profits and $15 million in rebates? Those are the kind of numbers that I, as a shareholder, can get behind.
Before the iPhone was released, there was widespread concern among Apple investors that the iPhone would cannibalize nano sales in particular, if not iPod sales overall. Knowing this was a possiblity, Apple moved to prevent the phone from eating into iPod sales the only way they could; by pricing it high enough that it didn't compete directly with their other products. But don't take my word for it: estimates from iSuppli indicate that there was approximately $300 in profit in each iPhone at launch; an unheard of margin, even for Apple. There is only one explanation for why Apple priced the phone so dearly initially; preservation of sales for their established products.
Apple then, on September 5th, completed a transformation of the entire iPod line around the iPhone. The nanos dropped in price and gained video capabilities. The touch was released without the phone components but with additional capacity over the iPhone. The Classic was released at double its previous capacity, and Apple was finally free to price the iPhone where they originally would have had they not been concerned about losing iPod sales. The complete iPod line, including the iPhone, fits together cohesively. It's almost as if Apple planned it that way.
And what about that $100? That $100 is probably going to cost Apple very little in the end. As has been noted by gizmodo, among others, there's not much you can buy for $100 in an Apple store. Earbuds? iLife '08? a shuffle? A lot of the people are going to use that $100 and buy bigger ticket items, and it's going to be pure gravy for Apple. I wouldn't be suprised if, after all is said and done, that $100 ends up costing Apple something closer to $15 per person, on average. IF they've sold 1 million iPhones, that's $15 million..but remember that they got $300 in profit out of each sale. $300 million in profits and $15 million in rebates? Those are the kind of numbers that I, as a shareholder, can get behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)