Google had the decision to jump-start their social network in a big way at a cost of annoying maybe 1 in 100 gmail users who are conscious about this sort of thing. Seems like an obvious decision to a for-profit company.
It raises questions in my mind about what data I am providing to Google and what unforeseen ways they may decide to use that data at some future point.
I did not claim that Apple would be more successful if I called the shots instead of Steve Jobs. I think that not one in a million could have staged such a successful resurgence as Steve Jobs has.
However, I believe Apple is harming their platform in this matter. It is possible that I am wrong and Apple will be better off with this decision.
In any case, some developers and authors are being due to their assumption that the platform would be more open. This will lead to many developers deciding to spend their work effort developing for other platforms.
There are most certainly those who have paid attention to this and recognized this mess was coming. The poster indicating he lived in the 1 bedroom apartment clearly recognized this as the difference between his situation and how those around him were acting was too obvious to ignore.
The majority rules in this democracy we live in and we can't have all policies the way we would like. However, we at least shouldn't distort the free market to this degree and spread the cost for this failure to properly judge risk.
An NDA being in place is a bit of an abstract concept for people and can seem relatively harmless until you hear of concrete examples of how that has impacted participants.
The reason this example is worthwhile is to aid the decision making process of those who are considering contributing to this platform. People need to fully understand the risks to invested time.
In your example, $5000/year interest is under the standard deduction. Unless you already have other deductions to itemize, you are getting no tax write-off for the $5000.
For instance, in 2008, the standard deduction for singles is $5450. Lets assume that you have $2000 in other itemized deductions. So, the first $3450 of your mortgage interest simply offsets the write off you would get with the standard deduction. Therefore, only $1550 would get you an additional deduction.
Now, if you're married, the standard deduction is $10900. In my situation, my mortgage interest is just barely greater than that amount.
The thing that makes me say that a lot of people don't even realize this software is installed is due to two main scenarios:
1. When downloading other software, I have seen several instances where the Google toolbar is bundled, and you have to go into an advanced menu to de-select it.
2. Many OEMs are now shipping computers to people with the Google Toolbar installed.
I believe these two cases account for a large number of the installs. Possibly even greater than the number of users who intentionally go out and download it, but more likely in the 30% range of new installs.
Of course, I have no real numbers on this, and so it is pretty much a guess.
Where it becomes a problem for people who own a website is when this behavior causes additional support calls due to a more informative 404 page being masked.
It will likely result in incidences where support staff have a checklist of "do you have the Google Toolbar installed? Uninstall it first." However, I don't imagine there will be a ton of cases like this.
I do think it is a mistake that the Google Toolbar enables this by default. Taking this power away from the website owners is not good. And let's be honest, At least 50% of people who have the toolbar installed are not technically savvy and a good portion of them probably didn't even intend to install the software (it was bundled with another download, etc).
Also, I don't see a problem with the practice of putting sensitive data in GET variables if the website is protected by SSL - Am I missing something? Edit: Thanks for the reply aaco, those are both valid reasons and I appreciate the insight.
That is true, not many companies can deliver on a Google scale, and there was a good amount of risk that Google wouldn't have been able to deliver.
Maybe the risks that Google would not have been able to deliver on the scale that they have warrants a return of 400% over two years. However, I tend to believe that the market didn't perfectly understand Google's technology/market placing/placing/potential/strength of executive team/etc and low-balled the upside potential.
Average share price over the last year is meaningless. Yes, the economy in general was taking a beating, but Yahoo had also come out with disappointing earning and outlook. At any given time, the market does a pretty good job at pricing in all factors to a stock's price.
If the economy as a whole is having problems and a company is at risk of lower earnings, the stock is clearly worth less. Over the longer term, if a company is able to get over those hurdles and achieve the earnings they desire, their value will again rise.
Would you argue that if a company tried to buy Citibank at $40/share that they were trying to take advantage of things? Its current price is $26/share but it was above $45 for the majority of the year. Citi, similar to Yahoo has had significant difficulties that reflect on the potential future earnings of the company. Therefore, these companies are likely fairly valued.
As a result, the Yahoo line that they are "massively undervalued" rings false to me. They have turned down a tremendous premium over their value...Unless they have other courses of action to raise their earnings significantly or they have other offers. My best guess is they are just negotiating and trying to get Microsoft to offer a few more $/share.
Let's see, a stock price of under $20/share previous to the $31/share offer being made. A greater than 50% premium is massively undervaluing the company?
Granted the market is not a perfect indicator of true value of a company. Google was a good example of this when they were valued at around $100/share and then proceeded to quadruple in value over the next 2 years.
However, Yahoo is no Google. They have not been able to effectively compete. I'm surprised Microsoft was willing to offer such a premium for Yahoo in the first place. Maybe I underestimate the synergies of the two companies and/or Microsoft's concern about their online division.
The interesting question to me is what comes next...Does Microsoft:
A. Sweeten the offer
B. Walk away completely
C. Give it a year expecting Yahoo's price to drop significantly before making a subsequent offer?
Unless the Yahoo boardmembers have some plan up their sleeves, I expect some very unhappy shareholders should B or C pan out.
Like their $1800 laptop that has about as much utility as the $300 ASUS EEE PC? (ducks)
Steve Jobs has done an amazing job turning around the company and much of this enthusiasm is warranted. However, the stock got way ahead of itself.
I considered shorting the stock also, but that is just way too risky. A stock only has to double to wipe out the entire investment. And, if a stock is already irrationally high, it could very well go substantially higher in the short term. However, put options may be a good way to bet on the downside while limiting risk.
At this point, I do think they are pretty close to an appropriate valuation. If they get another hit with their iPhone and their computer market share increases, they will do very well. But, I think this is far from a sure bet.
What I have a hard time understanding is why the XO laptops are not sold in the US and other industrialized nations as well as the developing world.
The only reason I have heard is that they don't want to get too "commercial" with these...whatever. Surely economies of scale would kick in and they would be able to drop prices faster and therefore be more successful with the aims of this project?
The notion that "I know exactly what people need and my ideas are all rational and brilliant while other's are stupid and irrational" in one that people are absolutely entitled to. Arrogant, yes - wrong, I don't think so.
The funny thing is that in the Fountainhead, Howard Roark really sacrificed A LOT for his singular focus on the types of projects he wanted to work on. His measure of value in his life was not having steady jobs, but achieving his vision. If someone wants to focus on something that doesn't match the conventional goals, I don't see that as being a problem as long as it doesn't inhibit other's freedoms.
Rand again takes this to the extreme, but it helps her to make a point (and makes for a more interesting story).
Agree that she takes the message to an extreme that isn't realistic in many cases. It's hard for me to imagine a person being able to live a happy life taking the message to the extreme Rand does in AS. Also, Atlas Shrugged is extremely long for the message it delivers.
However, I actually enjoyed the book and the story. Before I read the book, I had a lot of random and poorly formed ideas about what was economically moral, and this really helped me to crystallize my viewpoints.
I didn't mean to imply that essay was merely a summary of another book. 'Mind the Gap' is my favorite essay in the collection on your site. To me, it argues very convincingly that capitalism is the best economic model the world has. This is a very big picture question, and the fact that the essay argues this so concisely and effectively makes it great.
My point was poorly made. Stated more clearly, in my view, this essay is a work that shares the spirit of a lot of the same lines of thought as AS (though wholly unique in its focus). In addition to this essay being great on its own merits, I recommend this essay to anyone who is interested in getting a flavor of some of the big picture questions AS discusses.
PG, this is a very interesting comment to me. The reason I say this is that I cite your article 'Mind the Gap' at www.paulgraham.com/gap.html as a an excellent distillation of the key points of Atlas Shrugged with a bit of a technology focus. I had believed that Atlas Shrugged was an inspiration for this article. I guess I was wrong and you have independently argued a lot of the same concepts.
Yes, I have read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the last couple of years, and they were viewpoint-changing events for me. They are lengthy, but it was worth the read for me. My key takeaway is that personal freedom and the ability for individuals to focus on their goals with as little artificial interference as possible leads to the greatest societal gain.
Google had the decision to jump-start their social network in a big way at a cost of annoying maybe 1 in 100 gmail users who are conscious about this sort of thing. Seems like an obvious decision to a for-profit company.
It raises questions in my mind about what data I am providing to Google and what unforeseen ways they may decide to use that data at some future point.