I think you are talking past one another. He's saying that he does not think that their valuation is merited. You are saying that his assertion makes no sense because valuation is, by it's nature, defined by the current trading price.
You are I think technically correct, but the market isn't always perfect in judging the value of something, and I think he is saying that this is one of those cases.
"The whole section "Minority investment evaluations aren’t real" is so economically bizarre and incorrect that I don't even know where to start."
I don't think that's so bizarre to say. If there is huge demand for something and only a very very limited supply, then doesn't it stand to reason that price will go up more than it would have otherwise if there was more supply?
I agree with the jist of this article. And Apple's strong point IMO has always been their IJFW technology (it just fing works), which seems to elude so many others who cram in 10,000 features and wonder why nobody uses their product which takes a Ph.D in computer science to decipher (especially open source projects in many cases steps off soapbox).
The problem is, I actually think Apple is starting to abandon this approach for a more of a corporate driven 'I want you to lock you into this' model, which will NOT work.
The whole Flash debacle is the prime example of this IMO: if I want to use a Flash application on a webpage, and I'm the average user who doesn't even know* what Flash is, it better just f*ing work. Otherwise this product will be going back to the store, and I as Joe Public average computer-illiterate internet user will be on to something else. End of story.
Of course it's going to be more convoluted then newer languages like Java: Java doesn't have to maintain backwards compatibility with a 35+ year old programming language. That's just stating the obvious.
Yet for some reason people still use it. The question is 'why'. For many cases (not all though), I think the reason is largely just institutional inertia - you stick with the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know.
I think you are talking past one another. He's saying that he does not think that their valuation is merited. You are saying that his assertion makes no sense because valuation is, by it's nature, defined by the current trading price.
You are I think technically correct, but the market isn't always perfect in judging the value of something, and I think he is saying that this is one of those cases.
"The whole section "Minority investment evaluations aren’t real" is so economically bizarre and incorrect that I don't even know where to start."
I don't think that's so bizarre to say. If there is huge demand for something and only a very very limited supply, then doesn't it stand to reason that price will go up more than it would have otherwise if there was more supply?